The timing makes a difference though. If someone finds God when the finding of Him serves no concrete purpose beyond their own spiritual welfare (as in the case of a convicted felon), then that's fair enough.
But finding God (or bringing the subject up in conversation significantly more than you used to) at a point in your life when your behaviour and actions have become a matter of scrutiny - but when any consequences of that scrutiny are still pending - makes a sceptical response to any action that might be perceived as an assumption of a connection to a collective moral and ideological base, simply by an indirect appeal to that base, a pretty valid one. Of course, it's not a rare play - and it's an easy one, certainly when the player knows that a significant and often vocal section of those appealed to have a record for accepting the very worst of their own over the best of anything that might be construed as 'other'.
To be fair, Brand’s occasional appeals to Christianity (after he’d stopped being a Buddhist, or something) predate his current problems. But given that the two most reported expressions of this faith seem to have been to a Christian ‘lifestyle’ magazine, and Tucker Carlson (whose appeal to Christian conservatives of varying but sometimes undeniably extreme conservatism, is pretty well documented) then Brand, who as a social media entity is literally a brand, was essentially playing to broad, influential and potentially click-rich crowd that he is highly unlikely to have wanted to alienate.
I have no doubt that Brand has genuine and deeply held beliefs. But I think it would be an individual of extreme perspicacity to tell what they are. I’m pretty sure that many such people - whose lives are played out this way on social media platforms, and whose survival relies entirely on constant exposure and the relentless stimulation of a remote audience - lose sight of these things themselves.