If there is a most "correct" religion for mankind we have certainly not encountered it yet.
The problem with this question is that it requires a standard of judgment. Presumably a moral judgment would have to be used (which religion results in the most beneficial gains/least harmful side effects), but empirical assessment of truth value (do the claims match reality or are they at least consistent with reality in cases where we have no means of empirical assessment) and psychological satisfaction (how many people are satisfied or able to adopt the ideology without dissonance) would I think also have to be considered in order for this total judgment to be profitable as an exercise.
Science, Philosophy, and Mysticism will have to be able to come to the same table for once in all of human history and be able to observe the value in each other's programs/paradigms. Even if Mysticism is wrong, then Science must be able to incorporate the lessons learned through Mysticism into a comprehensive analysis of human psychology. Even if various Philosophies turn out to be dead ends, Science & Mysticism need to be able to accept that the goal behind Philosophy (that of understanding the "meta" levels of reality) is a useful one (the framework we used to understand is important because it determines what options we consider for experimentation).
Until such time that we can reconcile those "Big Three" you will never see a universal human "religion" (I'm not sure if the term religion would still be appropriate at that point, but for now will suffice).
MTF