In this article, the authors argue that an excessively restrictive limitation of the "religious field" dominates religious study that has blurred borders and overlaps other "neighboring" fields that are poorly defined (spirituality, esoterism, popular religiosity, health). This is mainly due to the use of theoretical perspectives that are simultaneously focused on Catholicism, modernity and Ecclesiastic beliefs and the application of Bourdieu's concept of "religious field" that involves little reflection. The arbitrary differentiation of specialization and purview into sub-areas produces areas of academic specialization that have little communication between scholars. This stands as an obstacle to expansive and integrative interpretations of the sub-areas. As such, a very impoverished and restricted vision of "religious diversity" is offered, fragmenting our subject of study in an excessively artificial way and essentializing differences between activities and actors that are very much intertwined in daily life. Two empirical examples are provided that show how this subdivision makes invisible the religious diversity of Argentina's past and stands in the way of its understanding.