the paper is well written and the analysis is clear and the conclusions sound. It brings syntax analytical techniques employed in other context to inform religious questions/urban conditions. There are a couple of small english errors (or missing subject) that need to be fixed but nothing major.
the most important thing that I recommend to do is for the author to have a 'methods' section where the "syntax analytical techniques" are clearly explained and the numbers that are provided (and upon which the interpretations and conclusions made) appeared to be supported (and verifiable). Otherwise, the empirical data and t tests that the author provide has little legitimacy. This 'methods' section is a normal requirement in all scientific articles that ground their arguments on empirical data (or analysis).
i still recommend publication, hopefully, with the addition of said methods section.