Opinion by Roger-Luc Chayer (Image : AI / Gay Globe)
When people list the world’s largest industries, they spontaneously mention the giants of technology, banking, oil, or the pharmaceutical industry. Yet one of the richest and most influential is almost always missing from the discussion: religion. Whatever their form, religions control immense financial resources and exercise exceptional power over the lives, wallets, choices, and beliefs of their followers.
When the conversation turns to the planet’s greatest economic powers, the media spontaneously evoke the technology giants, banks, the pharmaceutical industry, energy, or the big food multinationals. Yet a major player is almost always absent from this analysis: the religions.
This omission raises a legitimate question. Why do journalists so rarely discuss religions in economic terms, even though several of them manage considerable wealth, own major real-estate assets, handle financial investments, and collect billions of dollars in donations every year?
The answer lies as much in journalistic habits as in the very nature of the religious phenomenon.
The word “industry” has a relatively precise economic definition. It generally designates a set of organized activities centered on the production of goods or services, often with a commercial objective. Religions, however, primarily define themselves as spiritual institutions whose official mission is to meet religious, cultural, social, or humanitarian needs. Calling them an “industry” is therefore an editorial interpretation rather than a universally accepted description.
In newsrooms, religions are traditionally covered through the lens of faith, politics, culture, history, or human rights. Specialist journalists examine their beliefs, leaders, reforms, public positions, and social influence. Economic questions, though important, often remain secondary in media coverage.
Another reason explains this restraint: journalistic caution. Religion touches the personal convictions of billions of people. Using vocabulary that might suggest faith is primarily driven by commercial logic risks being perceived as a stance rather than neutral analysis. Media therefore prefer expressions such as “religious institutions,” “religious organizations,” “faith communities,” or “religious denominations”—formulations judged more descriptive and less likely to invite accusations of bias.
Yet as soon as financial issues become the heart of the story, the rules change. Journalists regularly investigate the fortunes of certain churches, tax exemptions, real-estate investments, investment funds, donations from the faithful, inheritances, the salaries of leaders, or the management of assets sometimes valued in the billions of dollars. In these contexts, religions are very much studied as major economic actors.
The Vatican, certain American megachurches, large evangelical organizations, Asian religious institutions, and foundations linked to various denominations administer financial resources that, in some cases, are comparable to those of large corporations or investment funds. Their influence extends far beyond the spiritual sphere into real estate, education, healthcare, media, finance, and humanitarian action.
The fact that these activities are not always motivated by profit does not mean they escape economic analysis. On the contrary, they mobilize budgets, employ staff, own assets, generate revenue, fund projects, and make investment decisions. As such, they can be the subject of rigorous economic coverage, just like universities, hospitals, or major non-profit organizations.
From a journalistic standpoint, it is therefore perfectly legitimate to study religions as economic powers when the investigation focuses on their assets, funding, governance, or financial influence. Claiming that “religions are an industry,” however, belongs more to an analytical or editorial viewpoint than to an objective fact. This characterization can be defended if it rests on solid data and rigorous demonstration, but it is not the vocabulary usually employed in news reporting.
The real question may not be whether religions are or are not an industry. It is rather why their economic weight so rarely occupies the center of public debate. In a world where large organizations are regularly assessed according to their governance, financial transparency, and economic influence, religious institutions are not exempt from these same issues.
What are the most profitable religions?
Speaking of the “profitability” of a religion is a delicate exercise. Unlike companies, religious organizations generally do not publish consolidated financial results on a global scale, and their stated goal is not to generate profits. They are instead organized into dioceses, congregations, foundations, associations, or autonomous communities, each with its own finances.
The Catholic Church: a colossal patrimony
The Catholic Church is widely regarded as the religious institution holding the largest assets in the world. Present in almost every country, it controls a vast network of cathedrals, churches, schools, universities, hospitals, museums, agricultural land, historic buildings, and financial investments. The Vatican itself manages significant assets through several financial bodies, but it represents only a portion of the total holdings belonging to dioceses and congregations spread across every continent. No official global valuation exists, yet specialists agree that this patrimony runs into the hundreds of billions of dollars.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
Often called the Mormon Church, this organization is recognized for its remarkable financial solidity. Thanks to the tithe paid by its members, a cautious investment policy, and a vast real-estate and financial portfolio, it is regularly cited among the richest religious institutions in the world. Its investment fund, revealed by various journalistic investigations, holds assets valued at several tens of billions of dollars, in addition to numerous properties and businesses.
American evangelical megachurches
In the United States, certain evangelical churches gather tens of thousands of worshippers every week. They generate considerable revenue through donations, digital platforms, publishing houses, television channels, conferences, and the sale of merchandise. Their operations sometimes resemble those of large multimedia organizations, with hundreds of employees and annual budgets running into the tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars.
Major Islamic organizations
Islam has no central authority comparable to the Vatican. Nevertheless, several religious foundations, Islamic universities, and institutions supported by certain states administer very large budgets. The annual pilgrimage to Mecca also represents a major economic activity. Although the revenues generated primarily benefit the economy of Saudi Arabia rather than a single religious organization, it illustrates the scale of the financial flows associated with religious practices.
Buddhist organizations
In several Asian countries, certain large temples and monasteries hold substantial land assets, receive significant donations, and manage cultural, educational, and tourist activities. Their wealth varies considerably from country to country, but several Buddhist institutions rank among the largest landowners in their regions.
Hinduism and the great temples
Like Islam, Hinduism has no single worldwide administration. Yet some Indian temples rank among the richest religious institutions on the planet thanks to donations from the faithful, jewelry, precious metals, land holdings, and investments accumulated over the centuries. Certain sanctuaries administer budgets comparable to those of major public companies.
An economic power rarely examined
The media frequently approach religions through the lens of faith, politics, or social issues. Yet their economic weight constitutes a subject of investigation in its own right. Without reducing them to their financial dimension, it is legitimate to examine their governance, assets, revenues, investments, and transparency.
Why do religions pay so little tax despite their wealth?
Religious organizations are among the oldest institutions in the world. Some administer considerable real-estate portfolios, collect millions or even billions of dollars in donations each year, and manage major investments. Yet in most countries they pay little or no tax on a significant portion of their activities. This situation is not the result of privileges granted case by case, but of a set of tax rules that have developed over the centuries.
In many states, religious organizations are treated as non-profit or public-interest bodies. In exchange for this status, they often benefit from exemptions on their income and, in some cases, on their property. The principle rests on the idea that religions render services to the community by offering spiritual guidance, supporting charitable works, helping the needy, running schools, hospitals, or food banks, and contributing to the social fabric.
In several democracies, governments also seek to avoid excessive intervention in religious affairs. Heavily taxing a religion could be seen as a way of influencing its operations or limiting freedom of worship. This logic often stems from the principle of separation between state and religion. Tax exemptions are sometimes presented as a means of preserving this mutual independence.
Donations are generally not regarded as profits
Another reason lies in the nature of the revenue. Companies mainly generate sales and commercial profits. Religious organizations primarily receive voluntary donations from their followers. In many tax systems, donations intended to fund a public-interest mission are not taxed in the same way as corporate profits.
Contrary to a widespread idea, religious organizations are not always exempt from all taxes. When they operate commercial activities with no direct link to their religious mission—for example shops, businesses, or certain investments—they may be subject to the same tax rules as other taxpayers, according to the laws of the country concerned. The rules, however, vary enormously from one state to another.
For several years, economists, legal scholars, and civic groups have questioned the relevance of maintaining certain tax exemptions. Their arguments are varied. Some consider it difficult to justify fiscal advantages when certain religious organizations possess real-estate assets of very high value or manage substantial financial portfolios. Others demand greater transparency regarding the revenues, expenditures, and investments of religious institutions.
Defenders of the current regime recall that many religious communities perform important social work that, without them, would have to be assumed by public authorities. They also argue that taxing places of worship could weaken thousands of small communities that have very limited resources.
Speaking of “religions” as a uniform bloc would nevertheless be misleading. Some institutions do indeed hold considerable assets, while others struggle to maintain their buildings or fund their daily activities. The debate therefore concerns less religion itself than the way states should fiscally treat organizations whose financial means can range from a few thousand dollars to several billion.
Why are some religious resources sometimes used against the rights of LGBT people?
For several decades, a question has regularly returned to public debate: how can religious organizations that dispose of substantial financial resources sometimes support political or social campaigns opposed to the rights of LGBT people?
Organizations with significant financial means can fund communication activities, awareness campaigns, lobbying groups, research institutes, legal actions, or political interventions. In several countries, certain conservative religious organizations have created or supported structures that campaign against same-sex marriage, against certain legal protections for trans people, or against educational programs dealing with sexual and gender diversity.
These actions do not, however, represent the whole of the religious world. They rather reflect the positions of certain movements or leaders who regard particular social developments as incompatible with their interpretation of their religious traditions.
The debate becomes particularly sensitive when individual religious convictions turn into campaigns aimed at influencing laws or civil rights.
In democracies, religious freedom protects the right to believe, to practice a religion, and to express opinions. Yet LGBT rights advocacy groups maintain that this freedom should not serve to justify the suppression of fundamental rights or discrimination against citizens.
It is precisely at this point that tension arises between two fundamental principles: freedom of religion and the principle of equality before the law. Recent examples have illustrated this, notably in the positions taken by certain German Catholic bishops who sometimes diverge from orientations expressed by the Vatican.
While the Vatican now uses, in certain documents, expressions referring to LGBTQ+ persons and communities, some religious leaders continue to speak of “behaviors” when addressing sexual orientations different from the majority heterosexual one. According to several observers, this formulation has the effect of not fully recognizing the identity of the people concerned and of reducing their reality to practices or individual choices.
This approach is also criticized when it draws parallels between sexual orientations and criminal or abusive behaviors, such as pedophilia, or practices involving animals. Such comparisons are rejected by LGBTQ+ rights advocates, who recall that sexual orientations between consenting adults constitute neither criminality nor a behavioral disorder, and cannot be equated with acts involving an absence of consent or another form of harm.
The relationship between religions and LGBT communities varies enormously according to countries and traditions. In some states, religious leaders have played an important role in defending LGBT rights and fighting discrimination. In others, conservative religious interpretations have been used to justify legal or social restrictions targeting LGBT people. It is therefore more accurate to speak of certain religious or politico-religious movements rather than of religions as a whole.
The contemporary debate also concerns financial transparency and the use of resources. When organizations that benefit from significant tax advantages actively participate in political or social campaigns, some citizens demand greater accountability regarding the origin and use of their funds.
The central question is therefore not only how much money certain religious institutions possess, but also how this financial influence is used in the public sphere.
ADVERTISING
READ ALSO
Friendship Between Gay and Straight Men: Breaking Persistent Prejudices https://gayglobe.net/en/friendship-gay-straight-men-prejudices/
Lindsay Graham LGBTQ+ Rights Record: A Controversial Legacy https://gayglobe.net/en/lindsay-graham-lgbtq-rights-legacy/
Canada’s Bill C-9 Hate Crimes Law Strengthens Minority Protection in Canada https://gayglobe.net/en/canada-bill-c9-hate-crimes-minority-protection/
Hepatitis A and B Vaccination in Gay Men (1990s) to Bepirovirsen Breakthrough Treatment https://gayglobe.net/en/hepatitis-a-b-vaccination-gay-men-1990s-bepirovirsen/
The Prostate and Male Pleasure: Understanding Its Surprising Role in Sexuality https://gayglobe.net/en/prostate-male-pleasure/