No government shall impose a substantial burden on the religious exercise of a person residing in or confined to an institution ... even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, unless the government demonstrates that imposition of the burden on that person— (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest. 42 U.S.C. § 2000ccl (a)(l)-(2). To assert a free-exercise claim under the First Amendment or a violation of RLUIPA, a prisoner must allege a substantial burden on his or her sincerely held religious beliefs. See Kay, 500 F.3d at 1218 (addressing sufficiency of allegations under Free Exercise Clause); Abdulhaseeb v. Calbone, 600 F.3d 1301, 1312 (10th Cir.2010) (<HOLDING>). Further, “the exercise of religion often
holding that religious exercise is any exercise of religion whether or not compelled by or central to a system of religious belief and that the use building or conversion of real property for the purpose of religious exercise shall be considered  religious exercise holding that an individual claiming violation of free exercise rights need only demonstrate that the beliefs professed are sincerely held and in the individuals own scheme of things religious regardless of whether the belief is unorthodox irrational or even demonstrably false holding that a prisoner stated a valid free exercise of religion claim where he alleged that prison officials refused to allow him to receive certain religious books holding rluipa claim requires prisoner to show he wishes to engage in 1 a religious exercise 2 motivated by a sincerely held belief which exercise 3 is subject to a substantial burden imposed by the government holding that requiring plaintiffs to show a substantial burden from nonneutral government actions would make petty harassment of religious institutions and exercise immune from the protection of the first amendment