As long as those practices are not seen as conflicting with the constitution & the laws of the land. In this case, the claim to exclusive ancestral rights on the temple was rejected & the temple then goes under the control of the state government which appoints as per their rules. Specific rules could have continued only if that right of control was upheld.
Oh, to be sure. And as long as the constitution does not conflict with Natural Law. Because: all men are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; among these are the Rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness; and it is to secure these rights that governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."
I don't see how government seizure of a temple of religion, and the re-writing of their rituals, doctrines and customs, accords with Natural Law.
Certainly positive law -- the laws of the state --- cannot be supreme. That is the premise of totalitarianism.