From a quick skim of your cite, the statutes in question are penal in nature. It’s a general principle that courts in one country won’t enforce another country’s criminal law.
That assumes India has felony murder statutes. I don’t know if they do, but my general impression is that the US is an outlier in the common law world with felony murder statutes.
He died in the commission of a crime. That makes any participants guilty as accessories, I assume. The seven locals who took him to the island have apparently been arrested, not clear if they have been charged and with what, but I think one report said they could be charged with the murder.
It’s one thing whether a foreign government can sue an American religious organisation in court, in the sense that such an action would be admissible. The answer to that question is yes, both before its own courts (which would depend, of course, on the national law in question, but from a comparative law perspective I’d say that most jurisdictions would consider themselves to have jurisdiction over such a case) and before American courts. Religious organisations don’t have the sovereign immunity from foreign jurisdictions that states have.
Another question is whether, in Chau’s case, such an action would be founded as to its merits. That would depend on the kind of involvement of the religious organisation in Chau’s actions.