You've got to be kidding, I hope.
Eastern North Carolina might be the most religious - especially in terms of Born Agains, Fundivangelists, and whatnot - area in the country...and it was the area completely flooded by Hurricane Floyd, killing 50+ people.
In Hurricanes Andrew, Charley, Frances, Ivan, and Jeanne, the South Beach of Miami (noted as a center for Gay culture and as a home for decadent nightclubs) has been basically bracketed by the tracks of all of those hurricanes and left essentially undamaged; instead, in Andrew, family homes in suburbs South of Miami, and a US military base, were destroyed; Charley trashed the small homes and trailers of a lot of elderly retirees; Ivan trashed another US military base and environs.
If you look at the known earthquake history for San Franciso and Los Angeles, the number and size of damaging earthquakes DROPPED drastically after World War II, when SF became the center for gay culture in the US, and LA became the center of the American porn industry.
If one were to attempt to make a case for areas being more prone to disasters because of the morality of their inhabitants you could probably make a better case for immorality protecting an area than vice-versa.
It appears that you are quite reasonable and logical and even somewhat scientific
WHEN the data and your construction on them support your biases.
But, you appear to be quite sloppy and 'kludgey' when indulging in your personal attacks and hostility to constructions on reality at odds with your biases.
No, I was not kidding.
I have read convincing analyses that arrived at some considerable lists of statistically significant differences in some sorts of natural disasters and regions/nations--some such and their over all morality. I don't even remember what year I read such. I can't remember what keywords would be most likely to find such studies. But they were quite rational and used publically available statistics from the governments involved.
Your hodgepodge of examples illustrate nothing, to me.