unless you are a dietary scientist / biologist with a PhD and years of research, anybody can accuse you of "not knowing anything". let's be realistic, reading Wikipedia and other articles about the history of fasting and the assumed, contrived, or anecdotal evidence does not make you an expert on the subject.
all internet discussion about nearly anything where 2 people have 2 different viewpoints basically amount to 1 person saying the other person needs to educate themself on the matter. why don't you educate me? instead of linking it to religious reasons (which mean nothing), how about you show me some scientific studies backing up your argument that fasting is good for health? the burden of evidence is on you. I cannot prove that fasting does nothing. you cannot prove a negative. quote me some scientific evidence and double blind studies showing health improvement from either fasting or cleanses and I might be inclined to change my opinion on the matter. i'm not an asshole and i'm not here to argue senselessly. i've never seen an iota of evidence to suggest cleanses are good for you but i've seen a LOT of product marketing aimed at consumers. that doesn't sit well with me.
aside from the fact that your link supports what I have said - prolonged fasting (more than 24 hrs) has been shown to have negative effects while intermittent fasting and short term calorie restriction has been shown to have positive effects on lipid profiles, insulin resistance, and longevity.