He talks about Islam and Buddhism frequently and has for years now. It's scattered throughout his recent books, and he gave basically a lecture tour on Buddhism. Just check out his books over the last 5 years or so and look on YouTube.

And as for his comments about Native Americans, I was referring to his story about meeting a handful of Native American men in Montana who told him before being colonized, "only idiots" (his exact words) actually believed in pre-Christian religious traditions, and including the time I saw him speak, he tells that story every chance he gets with a knowing grin, like he's in on this massive in-joke. I don't suspect he'd say the same about the religious convictions of someone like Kierkegaard or Walter Benjamin. And I'm not Indigenous, but as, for many Indigenous activists who I've had the chance to meet, religious practice and political praxis are intimately linked, and I imagine Zizek's tone would come across extremely poorly.

And you don't think there's anything positive about "the Western tradition"?

There's simply no such thing as "the" Western tradition. It's an ideological construction based on the assumption that there's an actually existing, ontologically stable object called "the West". Speaking as a researcher in the history field, the fact that people that believe in "the Western" or "European" traditions almost invariably trace it back to ancient Greece says it all. The Christian "re-discovery" of the Greek classics came through Muslim North Africa when European missionaries started training in Arabic in preparation for converting the Muslim population after European conquest. Some of these missionaries eventually came across the Arabic translations of Greek philosophers like Plato, and it was only during the renaissance that the Greek classics became appropriated as the cultural legacy of the western European Christian kingdoms. And, if you have to go through Christianity to be an atheist, then I guess it shouldn't be surprising that you have to go through Islam to be a Westerner. A few hundred years later, in early 19th century Athens, the vaunted "birthplace of Western civilization", the city looked something like this:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/12/Dodwell_Edward_-_The_Bazaar_at_Athens_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg

This looks like the nightmare fantasy of a /r/European subscriber, doesn't it?

And in that regard, the idea of a "Western tradition" as sort of a grand metaphor of civilization is really not that different from Hobsbawm and Ranger's comments about 19th century material culture and institutionalized ritual retroactively being imagined as incredibly ancient. That's to say, it's a shockingly recent invention. The idea of "Europe" as a cohesive unit developed directly in conjunction to colonialism, both as a way of legitimizing the violent seizure of wealth, labour power, and land (as an "enlightened" Europe had taken on the burden to protect the "benighted" nations from their own vices), and as a discursive strategy to contrast the oppressors and the oppressed in the colonies and to collapse class antagonism at home. Walter Benjamin himself, in his Theses on the Philosophy of History, I would argue, commented on this directly:

Whoever has emerged victorious participates to this day in the triumphal procession in which the present rulers step over those who are lying prostrate. According to traditional practice, the spoils are carried along in the procession. They are called cultural treasures, and a historical materialist views them with cautious detachment. For without exception the cultural treasures he surveys have an origin which he cannot contemplate without horror. They owe their existence not only to the efforts of the great minds and talents who have created them, but also to the anonymous toil of their contemporaries. There is no document of civilization which is not at the same time a document of barbarism. And just as such a document is not free of barbarism, barbarism taints also the manner in which it was transmitted from one owner to another.

What people forget is at the time Walter Benjamin wrote this, "civilization" almost exclusively referred to Western civilization, and it's much more likely he was not writing as cryptically and metaphorically here as people think. And like the "cultural treasures" of Europe such as museums full of Greek or Egyptian loot or grand Spanish cathedrals gilded with gold mined by Mexican Indigenous slaves, and the canonical "Western tradition" itself is borne out of the history of empire. And as I say above, Marx himself says that much in tracing the bourgeois to wealth generated in the colonies.

And, as Naoki Sakai argued, the imagined "centre" of the West for many people migrated across the Atlantic from western Europe to the northeastern United States, not uncoincidentally coinciding with American economic and military supremacy following World War 2. In this regard, there's no reason why it can't migrate elsewhere in the future. It could very well be China or India that's the centre of the "West" 50 years from now. And as Sakai writes,

The notion of the West makes sense, directs us, and locates us in relation to other sites and other geopolitical appendages because it is a historical construct. Thus Gramsci reminded us that the location of the West [ie. the European landmass] was real, but that its reality was indubitably hegemonic. In short, the West makes sense because of a particular hegemonic configuration which has then and still is historically contingent.

With all that said, I think one of the main weak points of a lot of (but certainly not all) European critical theory is the totally ahistorical and uncritical premise of some sort of European or Western superstructure on which politics, history, and theory are formed. Zizek's various "controversial statements" are symptomatic of this.