Agreed. All religion centrally focuses on meaning. I don’t think leisure is the focus, but rather is a reality that must be contended with. nor is happiness. Philosophers note that happiness is lost when sought, but found when meaning is sought, and meaning is lost when sought, but found when some other is sought.

So this new religion will focus on some form of seeking.

I have 1/2 thoughts of a religion reworking that is empirically built. It begins with the observation that a definition of meaning that results in nothing having meaning, is a poor choice for the definition of that word. It then acknowledges that all meaning is constructed. But setting out to construct meaning and it is lost. It is seeking some other that it is found.

Such religion goes on to notice that we strongly believe in several notions that don’t actually exist in a reductionist view of this world. (e.g. you as a person. The notion of a good action, to name two).

If we are so willing to accept these notions as “really existing” even as we acknowledge from a reductionist view they don’t exist. Why not others? Once we are open to accepting empirically motivated notions that reductionistically are not there, what else do we find “really exists?”

What I like about this path is it does not deviate from the now-widely-accepted reductive science perspective, but instead it builds its towers of meaning in the shadow of the edifice.

At the end of the book “The Abolition of Man” CS Lewis invites scientists to create a new kind of science… one that does not tear down pillars of meaning, but rather builds them up.

yes indeed.