Yes, because both secularism (and atheism) and leftism are built on individualistic and reductionist notions of truth, reason and action.
From what I can tell, whether in the Soviet Union or in the Dravidian movement in Tamil Nadu, atheism arose as a part of a collective struggle/revolt against authority as much as a form of rationalist intellectual programme. To add to my previous rant, even among the scientists who have come to represent secularism/atheism/ etc (which in itself is telling) it is Dawkins (a liberal(*)) who figures prominently, not Lewontin (a materialist/Marxist). So, leftism cannot provide an antidote or alternative because, IMO, its connection to the common good remains tenuous and contingent (at least until the arrival of the mathematical science that can demonstrate the legitimacy of the 'ought' in contrast to the 'is'), especially in light of the stronger version offered by religious communities.
--ravi
(*) Here used in the sense in which we differentiate liberals from the left, not in the sense in which one is the subset of the other.
P.S: I am aware that Lewontin's "commitment to materialism" could similarly challenge a commitment to collectivism. His name is offered only to draw a contrast between materialism (still a rationalist programme) and reductionism.