Remembering that Maslow did his work with technology that was available in his time and that his focus on culture was biased, I can understand the sceptics. Foundationally I find his theory sound in practice, but with a few caveots. First, all learning is relational an this includes the operant conditioning of culture and religeon and second, his first three tiers are equal in importance rather than tiered as he suggested. Belonging and Safety are as relevant as food and sex. Sometimes more so.

I agree that the model still has relevance on predicting human behavior to a certain extent. The utility of each step should decline as a person ascends the pyramid though the value doesn't necessarily go to zero.

Human being is defined as social animal. In this context Maslow may be right.,,,

However, human is a vicegerent of Allah and descendent of Adam and Eve then it misfit the context. Human existence is not limited to this temporary world rather beyond the death and one is accountable in life hereafter before the God on the day of resurrection then Maslow's theory is limited and questionable....

I consider that Maslow presented a more transcendent view to understand individuals beyond the biological components, but I would like to challenge the perspective and consider an inverted view of the pyramid. That would mean that a transcendent purpose can be above the basic needs, and it is what Viktor Frankl stated after living in a concentration camp and when he developed logotherapy. As Nietzsche said, "he who has a why to live can bear almost any how".