From Schulz and de Vienne's Separate Identity volume 1:
"Both E. D. Stewart and J. F. Rutherford suggest that he devoted much time, even years, to the study of Oriental religions. Stewart wrote that “the next few years were devoted to the investigation of the claims of the leading Oriental religions,” and Rutherford said “he devoted much time” to the investigation. Neither claim is correct. Stewart’s claim is untenable because of the known chronology. Even if Russell had devoted every waking hour to reading Oriental religion, no more than months would have passed. Rutherford’s claim is equally unsupportable simply from the standpoint of available time. P. S. L. Johnson, one of Russell’s associates, suggests that his study of Oriental religion was brief and limited by a rejection of what he saw as ‘absurdities.’ Johnson says Russell began his investigation with Chinese religious thought, rejecting it because of a creation story. “That was enough of the Chinese religion for him!” Johnson wrote, adding that “worse absurdities … made him reject Hindooism and Buddhism.” He rejected “Mohammedanism” at least partly because it was based on the Old Testament. An examination of Russell’s Plan of the Ages shows Johnson is correct."
Freemasonry is not an oriental religion. The claim that Russell was a mason as been debunked here many times.