How Do Supreme Court Justices Determine Someone's Sincerity?

The Supreme Court justices were asking questions in a  case where a condemned man wants to have his pastor pray for him and touch him while he's dying.  The lower court sided with Texas, so if the Supreme Court had done nothing, he wouldn't have been allowed to have these last contacts with his pastor. 

 The AP story reported by Jessica Gresko said they're asking questions like:

“What’s going to happen when the next prisoner says that I have a religious belief that he should touch my knee. He should hold my hand. He should put his hand over my heart. He should be able to put his hand on my head. We’re going to have to go through the whole human anatomy with a series of cases,” Justice Samuel Alito said.

Yeah, this claiming religious privilege could get out of hand. This claiming religious privilege could get out of hand.  Why, a baker might refuse to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple because it goes against his strongly held religious beliefs.  What's the difference between a religious belief and a personal prejudice?  After all, Southerners claimed the Bible supported slavery.  What if people believe that Jews killed Jesus (something I've been told on more than one occasion), do they have the right to impose the death penalty?

"Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh also expressed concerns about what a ruling for the inmate would mean for requests in the future, with Kavanaugh asking whether all states would have to offer equivalent accommodations.

What if, he asked, one state “allows bread and wine in the execution room right before the execution” or allows the minister to “hug the inmate.” Do other states have to do the same?"

I get that this question deals with setting precedents. Why are they so worried about some decency for a dying man? But maybe they should look at all claims to do or not do something based on a religious right. 

"Arguing for Texas, state Solicitor General Judd Stone II also told the justices that Ramirez’s request is just an attempt to delay his execution. Justice Clarence Thomas seemed to agree, asking what the justices should do if they believe Ramirez has “changed his requests a number of times” and “filed last minute complaints” and “if we assume that’s some indication of gaming the system.'”

'He [the prosecutor] also said it’s hard to know how a spiritual adviser might react during that time. That person could faint or stumble and jostle the IV lines, he said. “Anything going wrong here would be catastrophic,” he said.'

Really?  More catastrophic to whom?  Certainly not the person being put to death. 

Think about this.  Five of the Supreme Court Justices are Catholics and one more was raised Catholic.  All but one is strongly anti-abortion, but they have much less problem with the death penalty. It's good they are not bound to the Pope's position on everything.  The AP article says they've been less interested lately in staying executions, except when there's a religious aspect. 

The Court has already defined 'religion' pretty broadly.  From the Free Dictionary Legal Dictionary

"To determine whether an action of the federal or state government infringes upon a person's right to freedom of religion, the court must decide what qualifies as religion or religious activities for purposes of the First Amendment. The Supreme Court has interpreted religion to mean a sincere and meaningful belief that occupies in the life of its possessor a place parallel to the place held by God in the lives of other persons. The religion or religious concept need not include belief in the existence of God or a supreme being to be within the scope of the First Amendment."

This puts a burden on the Justices to determine if a belief is sincere.  That's hard to do in any event, but the Justices never see or hear the actual person whose case is before them.  This is, in fact, moving from interpreting the law to discerning a person's sincerity.   How do you interpret someone's deeply held beliefs in the first place.

? And  for those who belong to established religions how do you determine if someone actually believes the institution's doctrines or not?  Surely we have seen examples of, say, anti-abortion voting politicians who arranged abortions for their pregnant mistresses.  For a dying man, I say, risk being wrong and let him have his last request.  So what if he turns out to be gaming the system?  He's going to die.  

Most Western,  actually most,  countries have abolished the death penalty.  But our conservative Supreme Court justices seem to have no heart.  They're hung up on the myth of all people can be rich if they just put their minds and backs into working hard.  And punishment takes precedence over empathy and kindness.  So, they have to ascertain the difference between a legitimate religious belief or being gamed by a condemned man.