The author uses (misuses) freudian psychoanalysis, which reduces all emotions to sexuality, to formulate his opinions. This is highly reductionist (to say the least). The other problem is that a superficial look at something as complex as culture can yield absurd conclusions. For example, using (misusing) freudian principles, one can say the following thing about chistianity.
Jesus was a filthy, unclean man dressed in rags. He learned some magic tricks from the visiting Persian merchants. The Romans often invited him to perform at their parties, and in exchange, they offered him wine. So he routinely got drunk, tried to be "a notorious womanizer," and was a hobo all his life. Since Jesus' mother was a prostitute, fearing social retribution, she did not want to announce the true identity of his father, and had to make up a fantastic story for the illiterate nomads. Therefore, Mary claimed that Jesus was born without physical intercourse. So all his life, Jesus guarded the myth of his mother's virginity and hid the immoral activities of his father and other customers who visited his mother for sex. When Jesus become politically strong, the Roman commanders got rid of him and played a joke upon Jesus by crucifying him using the cross, symbolizing that the cross was the phallus and dildo which his mother must have used for her sexual gratification when customers weren't available. Thus, his followers today carry a cross as the phallic symbol of his immaculate conception. Jesus was a hopeless drunkard, to escape public scorn for his vice, he started a bizzare and revolting cannibalistic ritual of symbolically sharing wine and said that it was his blood. This revolting ritual is followed even today by mindless christians. It is safe to say that the obsession of the west with sex and alchoholism is a direct result of such prurient beliefs and immorality which pass as religious ritual. No wonder christia countries suffer from teen pregnancies, and drug and alchohol abuse.
How would the above be considered if it were written by a non-Christian academic scholar from a non-chistian culture? Who claims he has "found the true meaning of the christian beliefs?"
The problem with people analysing a culture without being part of it is that only the superficial is visible. And even that is perceived through a conditioning process that is outside the culture. A person not aware of christianity is likely to wonder how come these christians worship a bag of bones nailed to a piece of wood and call it divine? Perhaps their obsession with world domination is linked to their innate sense of shame at the inability of this emaciated, begraggled, bag of bones to face up to his tormentors. Maybe the whole of the west needs to be psychoanlyzed. Perhaps this explains how ruthlessly they treated the trusting and friendly american indians. The christians tranfered their own crisis of self-identity on to the Indians and massacred them.
A christian at a church is not thinking, look how indecent Jesus is, he hardly has any clothes on. Look I can count 4 no 8 bones in his ribs. Gosh! he must stink what with all the blood and sweat. Not to mention the fact that he probably didn't have a bath for days. The fact that christians worship this person surely means that they have no sense of shame, who knows perhaps they are all perverts who wouldn't think twice about torturing and killing people. After all, their senses are dulled by the appalling suffering of the figure they call god.
Do you see how absurd it sounds? This, then is the problem with reductionist thinking. You see everything colored by what preconceptions you have...