I think it fits your definition of scientific method.
Nope. Scientific method can only operate on things that are measurable. Repeatable, and can be repeated by others following the instructions. It does not do anything with that which it cannot measure. That is a distinct difference between it and religion. This also means there are many things in reality that you can't explain with science (YET) as you may not be able to observe them, repeat them, measure them, etc. That doesn't mean they don't exist. Science cannot prove what doesn't exist. It only operates with that which it can measure, observer, and repeat.
Religion works off of faith, and often off of certainty it is right. The key is faith. This is also sometimes called belief. Belief has nothing to do with science.
Now there are those that claim to be scientists, or use the label science to justify something they want to push onto others who actually are NOT practicing the scientific method. They are just stealing the label to lend what they say authority, and to try to stop people questioning what they are pushing. That is more the field of religion, and label or not those people are not practicing science.
The scientific method is quite simple. It is not more than the steps provided. They are quite simple. They don't need to expanded upon. In fact, if those steps are expanded upon it might introduce bias. That ultimately is one of the reasons the scientific method was created. To help us find answers regardless of our bias. If you follow the method that actually works. If you then reject the ability for people to challenge or ask questions then you turn it into bias and it is no longer scientific.
I do understand why you would think this though. Today there is a vast amount of "scientific", "scientifically", etc crap coming out every day that is not science at all. They just are stealing the label to push an appeal to authority fallacy, and stop people from questioning, to stop people from double checking themselves... after all it is scientific so I must take it as gospel right? Wrong.
True scientists never stop questioning even their own findings.
There has been some positive development in promoting compassion and vegetarianism thru Buddhism, or community and equality thru Sikhism (few people, if any, are equal to the Sikh gurus, though, yet there is much successful emphasis on community in this religion).
I never said there were not good things about religion. Yet for every good thing you show there are invariably even bad things that happen. I don't like group think as it leads to an us vs them situation. It is inevitable that strife will occur. I prefer to respect individuals, and individual rights.
You mention Buddhism, and Sikhism which on paper both seem pretty good. Yet they still promote group think. They have also lead to violence and strife. Often just between denominations. Or because they have conflict with some neighboring group of a different religion such as Taoism (which at its root is also peaceful). This does not stop human nature and the result of the us vs them. I think we can learn from religions. I just don't think identifying as one of them and becoming part of a group is ideal. Instead I see learning what many religions, and many ideologies say and taking the parts that mean something to you and being an individual is the key to avoiding the us vs them mentality.
Ultimately racism, and all forms of bigotry I am aware of stem from that us vs them mentality aka group think.