If Sam has specific ways that are currently applicable in transforming the human condition and is doing so voluntarily and with out profit to himself then what he is practicing is indeed pure religion. "Pure religion is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world." (James 1:27) However, this is not what is generally thought of as religion and is not regulated as such.
If Sam has specific ways that are currently applicable in transforming the human condition and is doing so for profit then what he is doing is a business and not a religion, at least by itself.
If Sam does not have specific ways that are currently applicable in transforming the human condition then we may be getting into a belief structure that needs to be looked at in considering if it is a religion. If he has any of the structure to his beliefs mentioned in the Wiki article then it would indeed count as a religion. If he does not have the structured beliefs then it does not count as a religion.
If Sam has phrases or words that lets him identify those in the "in" group then that of necessity introduces some amount of bias when dealing with those that are not in that group. However, this is not just a characteristic of religion as it is seen with RPG players, technical fields, among friends, and in other situations.
Teaching that it might be possible to enhance human capacity should, by itself, be non-controversial (e.g. glasses, prosthetics, eye surgery, heart surgery, and tool use in general). In fact, enhancing our own capacity above its natural limits is what defines humans in the first place.
It is when the teachings reaches into theoretical structures that are not grounded in current reality but on beliefs that the problem may arise. Stick to beliefs about technology within the next ten years and you will be fine, go beyond ten years and you are essentially saying that fusion power will arrive in twenty years (or strong AI). Except instead of the one technology that you are working on you list off dozens more equivalents of fusion power and then dozens more for each successive decade past the first. It quickly moves from being science to becoming religion.
So teaching that regenerating organs might soon be common place is not a religious statement. Teaching that humans will be able to rewrite ourselves in order to make Chimeras is. Teaching that computers will most likely continue to increase in processing power and that Strong AI might be possible is not a religious statement. Teaching that not only is Strong AI possible but that humans will be uploaded is. Hopefully you can see the distinction.
...It is when the teachings reaches into theoretical structures that are not grounded in current reality but on beliefs that the problem may arise. Stick to beliefs about technology within the next ten years and you will be fine, go beyond ten years and you are essentially saying that fusion power will arrive in twenty years (or strong AI). Except instead of the one technology that you are working on you list off dozens more equivalents of fusion power and then dozens more for each successive decade past the first. It quickly moves from being science to beco