This is a great theory. It’s impossible to test it! Everything is now answered and “science” no longer has to prove anything. Well done.
So how does this differ from religion?
Rees, an early supporter of Linde’s ideas, agrees that it may never be possible to observe other universes directly, but he argues that scientists may still be able to make a convincing case for their existence. To do that, he says, physicists will need a theory of the multiverse that makes new but testable predictions about properties of our own universe. If experiments confirmed such a theory’s predictions about the universe we can see, Rees believes, they would also make a strong case for the reality of those we cannot.
In other words, it is an application of the scientific method. Nothing unusual about that--that's what science does.
So how does this differ from religion?
Science relies on evidence, and the testing of theories based on that evidence. Religion relies on dogma and belief, and is not subject to tests using the scientific method.
Answering your question, usually any religion-like theory is missing only one of the attributes of a true religion - morality, i.e. commandments.
So how does this differ from religion?
It doesn't but godless liberals "feel" good about it.
They concoct the idea that God's wondrous infinite creation is instead muti-infinite subsets of His creation and think they've proven He doesn't exist.
Next thing ya know they'll be trying to convince people they actually know something about science!