> I'd say that's absolutely the scientific, empirical approach!
Not at all.
The scientific approach would involve a sample size greater than one, double-blind studies, and at least one control group. All of which you obviously can't do for studying an individual. However, not being able to do those things does not suddenly make this approach scientific nor empirical.
More importantly, it's very difficult to tell whether it's actually helping. It may be helping her in the short-term, but could be severely hurting her in the long-term [0].
As OP stated, they are not empowering the friend with tools to fix their own problem. Instead, they are clearly trying to promote this learned helplessness and dependence [1]. Sadly enough, it sounds like external dependence is the very problem the friend is trying to solve.
Basically, they are substituting the friend's problem with a different problem in the short-term, which will likely compound with the original problem in the long-term.
Yes, religions can help, but that's not guaranteed like a lot of religions would have you believe [2]. This scenario is a perfect example.
[0]: Give a man a fish, etc.
[1]: I realize psychologists are incentivized to do this as well, but a) I'm talking about in this particular case, and b) that's at least the intent behind the laws and regulations for having a medical license.
[2]: Including atheism.