I find it odd that you don't take into account how much of an exceptional case this is.

That's subjective depending upon ones perspective.

From one perspective, yes, it's exceptional (using starvation to kill someone in the name of religion), just like Jonestown was exceptional (religious people using cyanide to kill innocent people), as was Heaven's Gate (using vodka and phenobarbital to kill innocent people). So yea, they're all different. In each case, religious zealots used a different means to kill others. But from another perspective, there are many more common similarities between all these religious groups doing profoundly irrational and immoral acts exacerbated by superstition and peer pressure. I argue that if the act of believing in such superstition was more openly mocked and marginalized, it would be a good thing and potentially reduce the likelihood that as many people would be brainwashed by these cults.

This woman wasn't just a follower of a traditional religion, she was part of a cult of sorts.

No true Scotsman fallacy here. Every time one of these religious people does something horribly immoral, they are immediately separated from the herd and branded a "cult." Before then, there's little to no distinction. In the United States alone, there are more than 30,000 different major sects of Christianity alone. They're all "cults". They have many more similarities than differences, not the least of which is that they spend extraordinary amounts of time preparing for death and the afterlife.

Of course, the mother is still reprehensible in my eyes but this behavior isn't typical of traditional religions.

Maybe not literally, but figuratively it most certainly is. Go to a Catholic church on any Sunday and watch them talk about dying and being resurrected. Transubstantiation and drinking the literal blood of Jesus. There's a pretty fine line between the pantomime in church and reality, and these religious people for the most part claim to fully-believe in reincarnation and transubstantiation.

And when someone finally crosses the boundary and truly puts their actions where their faith and words have been, that's some kind of major faux pas? Only if everyone wants to come out of the closet and admit that religion is pantomime and has no truth, but that's not what they say.

For example:

Mark 16:17-18:

And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

It clearly says in the bible that if you are a true believer, you can drink "deadly poison" and not be hurt.

So if someone acts on that is that considered un-christianlike, cultish, exceptional or insane?

And how many people believe the bible to be the word of god and truthful and divinely inspired? Or is it all just a dog and pony show, like pro wrestling that everybody, even the most devout are supposed to say is "real" when it's really fake?

My point is, it's either fake and everyone needs to admit it, or else what this woman did was perfectly in line with scripture and christian ideology. So why is it so inappropriate to marginalize the whole shebang?