we expose subjects to two dictator games. Religious preferences are measured by providing subjects with a small endowment (400 tokens; 333 PKR; 3.2 USD) and asking them whether they would like to donate any part of this endowment to a local mosque. Social preferences are measured by providing subjects with a small endowment (400 tokens; 333 PKR; 3.2 USD) and asking them whether they would like to donate any part of this endowment to a local (educationfocused) charity, The Citizen’s Foundation (details above). The measure of the religious and social preferences is simply the number of tokens donated to the mosque and charity, respectively. It is important to note that the order in which subjects saw the two dictator games were randomized, such that one set read the description of the charity (and made donations to the charity) first, followed by the mosque, while the order was vice versa for others. Importantly, the dictator games were implemented before the investment decisions. Both dictator decisions were incentivized and were paid with the donations added to the final amount donated to the mosque/charity.

Note that religious preferences are notoriously difficult to measure, particularly due to differing motives, practices, experiences, etc. For this reason, we also use two survey-based measures: the Duke University Religion Index (DUREL) (Koenig and Bussing, 2010) and the Hoge Intrinsic Religiosity Scale (Hoge, 1972). Our incentivized measure is significantly and positively correlated with both survey-based measures ( _p<0.05_ in both cases). Survey based measures are very noisy, and prone to bias, so we restrict our analysis to the incentivized measures. Our results do not change when we use the survey-based measures, though our significance levels naturally drop due to the noisy nature of these alternative measures.

Finally, we measure risk preferences, financial literacy, and previous (real world) investment experience. Risk preferences are measured using seven hypothetical choices between a gamble with a 50% chance of getting 1,500 PKR, or a 50% chance of getting 0 PKR (expected value of the gamble is 750 PKR), and a sure payment. The decisions change the amount of the sure payment from 0 PKR to 1,500 PKR, in 250 PKR increments. Our measure of risk preferences is simply the number of times the subject selected the gamble. Hence, higher numbers indicate higher risk seeking behavior.

Financial literacy is simply the number of correct responses to five financial literacy questions used by Van Rooij, Lusardi, and Alessie (2011). These are:

- 1) Suppose you had Rs. 1,000 in a savings account and the interest rate was 2% per year. After 5 years, how much do you think you would have in the account if you left the money to grow?

- 2) Suppose you had Rs. 1,000 in a savings account and the interest rate is 20% per year and you never withdraw money or interest payments. After 5 years, how much would you have on this account in total?

- 3) Imagine that the interest rate on your savings account was 1% per year and inflation was 2% per year. After 1 year, how much would you be able to buy with the money in this account?

- 4) Assume a friend inherits Rs. 100,000 today and his sibling inherits Rs. 100,000 3 years from now. Who is richer because of the inheritance?

- 5) Suppose that in the year 2020, your income has doubled and prices of all goods have doubled too. In 2020, how much will you be able to buy with your income?

Our measure ranges from 0 to 5, with 50% of our sample getting all 5 questions correct, and 85% getting 4 or more (no one got all questions wrong). Payments to mosque/charity occurred weekly to representatives of the mosque/charity, in the presence of volunteer subjects, who were invited back to the lab for the express purpose of witnessing the donations. Within