Debased

One example includes a tweet from Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) and an interview from Kanye West that baselessly argue the vaccine would be the "Mark of the Beast," or a biblical reference to a societally restrictive scar imposed on people by the Antichrist.
Influencers played outsized role in pushing anti-vax conspiracies

First off, just as a point of accuracy, the mark of the beast is not, in Christian mythology, "societally restrictive." Quite the opposite; it's seen as the ticket to being able to freely trade. In Rome, only official coins could be used for trade, and, one theory puts it, certain Jews saw this as the mark of the beast, as they considered Roman Emperors to be agents of evil. Early Christians continued this, and it made its way into the book of Revelation. In any event, the Axios story literally has it backwards.

But more importantly, what would be a legitimate basis for a story concerning the supernatural? As far as most non-Christians are concerned, of course the arguments from Representative Greene and Kanye West are baseless; non-Christians (more or less by definition) give no credence to the Biblical prophecies in Revelation, or to Christian eschatology more broadly. Not to mention that for non-Christians, the Antichrist is basically irrelevant.

"Baseless" is becoming a go-to criticism, as it implies that something should not be believed, but without needing to go our on a limb and directly label it as either mistaken or deliberately untrue. In that sense, it's become what could be called a "lazy" way of attacking something. But it's also become something of a media buzzword, and, as such, is only trotted out under certain circumstances, more or less independently of the nature of the thing in question. Consider the idea that almost all faith, especially of the religious sort, is technically "baseless." That's part of the definition of faith; if it could be conclusively shown to be true, one wouldn't need to take it on faith. But for a media organization in the United States to openly describe the idea that Biblical prophecy was coming to pass in the world as we know it to be baseless would be regarded as a blunder of the first order. High-level executives would be called to account by religious leaders and politicians alike for the perceived insult to the faithful.

The partisan way in which the term "baseless" has come to be deployed is starting to rob the world of a formal meaning, and replace it with "things people say that we're so feed up with we can't even be bothered to refute it anymore." Which, on its own, is fine. It's just a part of the evolution of language. But it's also part of what makes a lot of the news that's available to the public the domain of political "hobbyists." When media parrots this or that fraction of public opinion back to the people who hold it, no education or enlightenment is part of the process.