Can you clarify a bit what you mean? Your characterization of "fundamentalism" pretty much only applies to Christianity, but you said "fundamentalist religion." There's a whole separate discussion to be had about whether "fundamentalist", a term that arose in a Christian context, is at all applicable to other religions, but, for example, the problem with "Islamic fundamentalists" has little to do with their analysis of parables and stories.

I assume from your characterization that you are talking about Christianity. Then:

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2el0uz/how_accurate_is_the_statement_christian/

This thread has some great responses by u/koine_lingua and u/yodatsracist (scroll down a bit). It's useful to keep in mind that fundamentalism, scriptural literalism, and scriptural inerrancy are different things. Fundamentalists usually by definition are committed to inerrancy, which almost necessarily means sacrificing literalism, so not quite "taking scripture ... wholly as fact" but often the exact opposite!