Moab is a useful test case for how much can be reconstructed about a religion from a thin record, and the honest answer is not much.
The direct Moabite evidence amounts to one long royal inscription, a handful of shorter ones, seals, pottery and excavated sites. There is no Moabite literature, no myth, no hymn, no ritual text. Chemosh is known to have been the national god because a king says so; whether there was a pantheon around him, what its structure was, and what ordinary Moabite household religion looked like are matters of inference from neighbouring cultures and from archaeology that cannot distinguish a Moabite figurine's meaning from a Judahite one's.
Everything else comes through Israelite writers whose interest in Moab is adversarial and who wrote centuries after some of the events they describe. The account of a Moabite king sacrificing his son on the wall during a siege, which appears in the book of Kings and is followed by an Israelite withdrawal, is the single most vivid Moabite religious datum in the Bible and it is also unverifiable, told by an enemy, and part of a narrative with its own purposes.
The atlas holds Moab because the kingdom is real, its inscription is real, and the biblical material about it is a major body of evidence for how Israel understood its neighbours. What it does not hold is a reconstructed Moabite theology, because there is not enough to build one.