Religion is a personal system of belief.
Religion is a cultural institution that has existed with recorded history. There is currently no known religion to be proven true and many religions contain elements impossible to disprove.
Another take on religion is a system of beliefs that are entangled with incorporeal elements.
Being that this is a personal belief, there really is nothing to do if someone believes something that is wrong.
So here is a combination of difficulty in proving a belief incorrect, as well as attempting to devalue something that is foundational to the majority of humanity's culture and history. It will remain sacrosanct until the majority of humans no longer value it.
An outside influence cannot change what someone believes to be true. They can claim their belief changed, but it isn't until someone is internally willing to change their beliefs that it changes.
Science is a social system of belief.
Science is a social system of belief. However, the difference between science and religion is that science is s system designed to be as inclusive as possible for all people to utilize and understand. This is a system based on corporeal or demonstrable acts that physically exist.
Science and religion are not mutually exclusive.
Science attempts to provide the physical mechanism for how something happens. Where a priest may say that God holds a bird in the air through flight, science would provide the physics of how the bird is in the air. Does that mean God isn't holding the bird up? This isn't answered by science. Science explains what it can the most accurately it can.
A famous early example of how science was decoupling from the sacrosanct is Galileo. There are many other examples of a few people proving everyone else wrong. Over enough time of people dying and science still being correct it was more acceptable to challenge the known with facts of science.
The very concept of being sacrosanct is antithetical to science. It thrives on being challenged in new ways, having the normal tables flipped, and any sort of change as long as it can be proven correct (or more correct than previous conventions).
There are attempts at making scientific claims sacrosanct. Not to get controversial, but looking at political arguments in climate science clearly shows how there is are factions of people whom defend their perspective on the topic like it is a religion (climate alarmists and climate deniers).
However, the majority of people have come to accept that the freedom of scientific ideas is has immeasurable benefit.
Science is a process to discover things that can be proven to others as true. The only way to change this would be to develop something people value more.
Capitalism is a social system of commerce.
There is nothing sacrosanct about capitalism. It is far from perfect. Economists and politicians are constantly trying to improve it or figure out ways to change things.
While it has done a lot of good, people are quick to point out many flaws in ways that it doesn't do good things. One clear example is that capitalism is terrible for people of exceptionally low intelligence. I am not sure if a better system exists or is possible, but to call capitalism sacrosanct would be to give up on looking for a solution for the disenfranchised.
Not to mention that capitalism doesn't scale down to small isolated communities very well.
I honestly struggle with the concept of capitalism being sacrosanct without everything else about the world being totally insane.
To be clear, this answer is from a Western perspective. I don't find this answer to be great, but maybe it can be improved.
