Courts have upheld bans on church attendance based on concerns about possible spread of COVID. The logic is that so long as the rules do not single out religious gatherings for bans, a plausible health benefit is sufficient to suspend the free exercise of religion and freedom of assembly guaranteed in the First Amendment.
My observation is that many studies have shown large long-term health benefits for regularly attending religious services. Here are some examples:
University of Saskatchewan found that the incidence of clinical depression was 22% lower among those who attended religious services at least once a month . . .
Those who go to church more than once a week enjoy even better health than those who attend only once a week. Overall, the reduction in mortality attributable to churchgoing is twenty-five percent – a huge amount in epidemiological studies.
Can the government likewise require regular attendance at a religious service so long as suitable secular alternatives are acceptable?
Courts have said that public health benefits trump constitutional protections related to free exercise of religion. Logically the same logic used to shut down services can be used to require attendance as well.