That's backwards from what I think. Supernatural forces are what is not acting. Religion, a set of beliefs that supernatural forces control reality, does act, often leading people to do bad things.
More often it leads people to do good things. In this case however, it made a bad scientist (if she's not lying about her faith just to make money).
Yet your comment and value judgment tacitly presuppose the supernatural. In order to think at all you have to.
For example, what is this notion of people doing "bad things"? Are there "good" atoms and "bad" atoms? If your thoughts are nothing but matter in motion then you just have non-theistic chemical reactions of the brain and a religious person who thinks backwards from you just has theistic chemical reactions of the brain. What else is there in a purely physical universe? Assigning moral or rational values to your thoughts, or to any other irrational physical force, you have to claim for your reasoning a validity that is not credible if your thought is nothing but a product of your brain, and your brain a by-product of irrational physical processes. This would mean that you do not hold to a naturalistic philosophy because it is true, but simply because of a series of chemical reactions, the logical conclusion of which is that there isn't a dime's worth of moral or rational difference between your thoughts and a supernaturalist's thoughts, which is self-refuting.
Cordially,