The problem with "scholars" when it comes to religion, unlike just for languages, is that scholars often are ideologically biased by the pro-Semitic chain of religion which would have a vested interest in suppressing PIE religious history. For thousands of years, even the local PIE-derived religions were unfairly dismissed as paganism. You'd have more luck talking to an LLM about it, as it's more likely to independently know the full picture, and hasn't yet been brainwashed by "scholars" into asserting otherwise. An LLM can trivially pull together bits of evidence across all of world history. At the very least, consider the shared cgpt chat with ID 6a7e0d45-0478-83ea-8142-8172433fad21.
Just out of sympathy cause I think there's a legitimate root to the religious point. Your epistemology comes across as extremely weak, with believing LLMs over scholars, and discriminating which scholars are legitimate based on agreeing with your beliefs. It would pay to at least familiarize yourself with the arguments of the other side, suspending in your mind the whole partisan angle.
Honestly I don't think anyone actually powerful nowadays cares one bit about "PIE" religions. What could be happening is some revisionism relying on conveniently selective standards of rigor to bury other scholars. As this is a field famously relying on unclear and very messily transmitted evidence; and these kinds of problems are a very weak point of the humanities overall. But I don't follow this debate at all, so don't have a formed opinion.