When considering academic definitions of “religion” (such as those by Durkheim and Geertz, discussed in the video below and in various items this term), are you convinced by the thesis that fiction-based religions are “real” religions?

Review the following video (embedded, and a URL is below, as well). In the article, Fiction-based religion: Conceptualising a New Category Against History-Based Religion and Fandom,” Markus Altena Davidsen states, “Despite their fictional basis,fiction-based religions are genuine religions because the activity and beliefsof which they consist refer to supernatural entities which are claimed to existin the actual world… Fiction-based religion emerges when fictional narratives are used as authoritative texts for actual religious practice” (378). Drawing on Davidsen’s analysis and the ideas posed in this video, respond to the following prompt (in 2-3 paragraphs):Fiction-based religions are directly related to specific media objects (books, shows, etc.), whereby the world-creating within those media objects serves to orient individuals in the non-fictional (i.e. “real”) world. When considering academic definitions of “religion” (such as those by Durkheim and Geertz, discussed in the video below and in various items this term), are you convinced by the thesis that fiction-based religions are “real” religions? If so, why (i.e., what criteria do these fulfill that grant them the status as “real” religions)? If not, why not (i.e., what criteria do they lack that would grant them the status as “real” religions)? Finally, what is at stake in determinations of what is or is not a “real” religion?