Your entire post is really interesting and points to the fact that to the extent religion is nothing but a series of convictions and propositions to be tested and accepted or rejected, it's probably never going to be helpful or appealing to anyone. Of course, as you point out, viewpoints are not what people find appealing or helpful about religion; rather, they are in it for something else. Religion helps some people deal with life.
I do not believe, however, that the measure of the efficacy of religion must then be "limbic imbuement satisfaction." If you just want to feel good, then eat well and get enough exercise, and maybe get a massage or go to the spa. Meditation, for example, is not about trying to feel good, although certainly there are meditative experiences that can provide "limbic satisfaction." In the long run, however, it's impossible to avoid inevitable limbic dissatisfaction, no matter what religion or non-religion one observes, and the antidote is not to replace the dissatisfaction with satisfaction. The pursuit of fleeting limbic satisfaction doesn't get us any farther than the pursuit of an unassailable worldview.
The measure of its efficiency is indeed the limbic imbuement satisfaction, but that is not to state that religion is defined as that alone; that was only a means whereby it is easy to gauge whether someone will or will not likely fall away from their belief system - referring to chronic emotional atrophy to their belief; not just simply ebbs and flows normally (it's like the difference between normal periodic sadness and happiness frequency and chronic depression).
Spirituality is part defined by that, but the other part has allot more to do with the nature of how our brains form identity due to their neurological biases.
For instance, take a look at subjective capgras and what you'll find are people who are convinced that they are not alive (in a variety of claims ranging from walking dead to being in another dimension, to being in hell alive, etc...) and the primary issue that has taken place was a cessation of involving reception from the amygdala in relation to processes in the fusiform gyrus when looking at their own face.
Meaning; they aren't receiving an emotional sensation with the visual reference as they are used to seeing; as such, because the emotion is absent, their brain repels from accepting the identity as real.
Emotion is a massively important and vital part of our function, and more so when it comes to identity.
The other part of spirituality is this identity portion, and oddly; not in the way that would exactly be expected, but instead almost as a byproduct of our means of processing associative information and identity for all other facets of our existence.
It's a lengthy discussion, but the truncated form is to just state that basically at a basic level our brains intuitively treat existing and existence as if it were a person. By that it is meant that our brains digest it subconsciously as if these things are things that can be related to like a person is related to.
After the fact cognitive focus upon the impulse alters the intuitive response to attempt to associate and classify existing and existence as a relationship that is held in a singularity, and produces a rejection of the intuitive state.
I know this may read as if I'm stating that this creates gods, but that's not what is meant by stating "person" or "relationship".
Instead, it is meant that we are bias to intuitively assume human relation because that is our capacity, and our senses of awareness all pass through the amygdala where a very non-cognitive language is processed through association; much of the time subconsciously.
Because existing and existence includes ourselves, it becomes tangled in between more so than when assessing a rock; as our only input of digestion for existing and existence is our own sense, and we are human.
It's somewhat similar to empathy, whereby a trick is being played on the brain to believe that it is the other for the purposes of processing urgency and valuing assistance.
Religion, then steps back into the picture, as it (as an institution) provides a body to attach the identity association of existing and existence onto.
A person doesn't need such; not at all.
However, if religion shows up at the door (especially at a young age), then these normal byproduct associations will likely latch onto whatever is being presented (be that a god, a force, a sense, etc...) as the thing they "feel" connected to.
Instead, the brain only really "feels" connected to existing, and by proxy; existence.
Some will say this makes religion a brainwashing scam; and to a degree this is true.
However, I would hesitate to draw such a sweeping conclusion for all people, as there are plenty of people that are not affiliated to any religious institution, but are still heavily spiritual in a religious manner personally by their own election.
So it is here where the worldview comes in; it comes in piggybacking on our processing functions for identity, and offers itself openly to this innate bias in most brains (which may be a possible reason for the claim by some adherents, based on how they feel, that everyone is born religious, or born knowing some god; despite such not being the case).
It may simply feel that way to them because what is born to us all (subconscious associative identity processing) has been cognitively associated to a particular form and overt identity; thereby making the two appear synonymous to the devout adherent.
