The link only talks about economic uncertainty. Clearly, there is more to it.
For example, I would say every single person is routinely perplexed by 50% of the rest of the planet (aka the opposite gender). That is a constant source of uncertainty, but doesn't cause us all to become religious.
Besides, even the richest substrata of economically developed countries just somehow automatically gravitate towards religion-influenced philanthropy. A lot of these philanthropy vehicles are predominantly religious in nature, e.g. a missionary to build schools in Africa. The economic certainty experienced by the rich folks isn't making them object to the religious nature of these organizations even if they themselves don't explicitly believe in religion. They could just stop donating, but something tells them the good outweighs the (in their view) bad.
I think there is a deep need for people to find meaning in their lives, but it is also a personal and subjective notion. Maybe richer countries are generally better set up for this because of the larger number of opportunities for people to find meaning in the way they define it.
> The link only talks about economic uncertainty. Clearly, there is more to it.
Of course. Economic uncertainty just happens to be the largest source of uncertainty in many parts of the modern world (unless you happen to live in a war zone or under an oppressive or corrupt government).
> For example, I would say every single person is routinely perplexed by 50% of the rest of the planet (aka the opposite gender).
What an odd thing to say!
> Besides, even the richest substrata of economically developed countries just somehow automatically gravitate towards religion-influenced philanthropy.
Religion is historically the driver of philanthropy [1], but in modern times you also have things like the Gates foundation.
> The economic certainty experienced by the rich folks isn't making them object to the religious nature of these organizations even if they themselves don't explicitly believe in religion. They could just stop donating, but something tells them the good outweighs the (in their view) bad.
You haven't explicitly stated it, but it sounds like your premise is that religious feeling is causing these people to donate, rather than them donating to any cause that reduces world suffering. In fact, the religious nature of so many philanthropic organizations is one of the driving reasons for the rise of secular philanthropic organizations in recent years. More and more people want to support evidence based help that doesn't also spread a religion.
https://academic.oup.com/socrel/article/78/2/146/3079315