A citation is needed to disprove the information that you refer to as "religious fabrication". Lack of information in Egyptian records is not a citation.
It is only controversial to say this because it is a religious document.
(Lest you think I’m taking sides, the Jewish account of exodus doesn’t line up with archeological evidence either.)
Please check this documentary on the new evidences regarding the Exodus [1].
[1]The Real Mount Sinai - Shocking Exodus Evidence in Saudi Arabia:
On the Egyptian side, basically no excavations or inscriptions anywhere match up with the biblical story. There were semitic-speaking slaves in Egypt, yes, but not chattel slavery as commonly depicted, but rather something more akin to domestic servants and feudal peasants. And they were never expelled, as there are ongoing references long after into the Ptolemaic kingdom. The only exodus on record of semitic peoples is the Hyksos, who weren't slaves but rather conquerors and the fifteenth dynasty of Egypt. When the Hyksos were eventually defeated, they were expelled and driven out as far as Syria. Maybe that was the origin of The Exodus? But if the story changed from a slave rebellion ("let my people go!") to a dynastic struggle by the ruling class, are we still talking about the same story?
Finally there's the question of when the story was written down in the first place. It is interesting to note that the first few prophets of Israel make no mention of the Exodus whatsoever. It is not part of the shared zeitgeist of early Israel. It is only a few hundred years later that the references to an Egyptian origin are made by some of the northern prophets, and then the story spreads to the south. The Exodus itself isn't written down until Babylonian captivity much, much later, at which point a liberation story starts sounding quite a bit like Mary Sue fan-fiction.
Wikipedia has a pretty good summary of the current state of research as well: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Exodus
I know it is not satisfying, but essentially all of modern biblical scholarship no longer consider these (among others) are factual. This is held by believers and non-believers in the field alike. There is not a single paper to cite, its the result of decades of research with the field slowly settling on this as the result of hundreds of papers, studies, and books. In particular, you won't find a paper entitled "Modern Biblical Criticism rejects X", as it is not original research and worthy of publication. A book like Thomas Romer's "The Invention of God" goes through a bunch of the pro/con evidence and various theories and proposals put forth. And here is a paper by Romer that just summarily states that modern research has abandoned the documentary hypothesis, but doesn't really offer support for that as it is a well known point within the field that doesn't require re-litigation: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-03820791/document
Anyway I was directly replying to my parent poster not to the article mentioning that if anyone especially kings that can sort of reliably predict the future they can claim divinity.
[1]Muhammad ibn Musa al-Khwarizmi:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_ibn_Musa_al-Khwariz...