In Friedman v. Southern Cal. Permanente Medical Group (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 39, the defendant refused to employ the plaintiff, a vegan, after he refused to be vaccinated against mumps because the vaccine was grown in chicken embryos. In filing his FEHA complaint for discrimination based on religious creed and retaliation, the plaintiff argued veganism was a religious creed. In determining it was not, the court extensively examined federal and state statutes, cases, and regulations that defined and discussed religion and religious beliefs in a variety of contexts. Friedman identified three "objective guidelines" for courts to use to "make the sometimes subtle distinction between a religion and a secular belief system" for FEHA purposes. (Friedman, supra, 102 Cal.App.4th at p. 69.) "'First, a religion addresses fundamental and ultimate questions having to do with deep and imponderable matters. Second, a religion is comprehensive in nature; it consists of a belief-system as opposed to an isolated teaching. Third, a religion can often be recognized by the presence of certain formal and external signs.' ." (Ibid.) Using these factors, we determine plaintiff's belief system is not a religion for FEHA purposes. First, Sun Worshipping Atheism does not "address fundamental and ultimate questions having to do with deep and imponderable matters." (Friedman, supra, 102 Cal.App.4th at p. 69.) Rather, it deals with living a healthy lifestyle. The sun is worshipped because there are health benefits that derive from it. Plaintiff fashioned Sun Worshipping Atheism after reviewing scientific data to determine healthy practices that have a positive effect on the mind, body, and soul, which he claims are all the same thing. Plaintiff's statement that his beliefs address "the nature of the universe, nature of human beings, what we need to do to be moral," is a mere conclusion, insufficient to prove this element. (Id. at pp. 69-70.)