I have no objections to broad abstractions either. They can be quite useful at times. But I do think the attempt to capture religion (and only religion) by means of the notion of a "supramundane reality" is bound to fail. There are just too many other possible non-religious referents for the term. And the addition of "practices" does not help. Apart from anything else it risks making the argument circular:  Question: What is a "practice"? Answer: The kind of thing religious people engage in.

Again, I think all this (I'm not just thinking of Jim Stone's ideas) is an attempt to purchase religion much too cheaply, to re-use the phrase I used in my last. Much the way theosophists do: choose a range of religions, add a dash of philosophy, and stir. And, hey presto, a god - or should I say a "supramundane reality"? - for all seasons!  I am not religious myself, but I have too much respect for genuine, profound, religious faith to think that it could ever be come at in this way.

DA