I'm reading Atrocitology by Matthew White, and whilst I'm a fan, White notes in several sections that his lists occasionally differ from the accepted historical record. Case in point, the reason for human sacrifice in Aztec culture*:

"[The] most sensible explanation for Aztec sacrifice is also the least popular. In fact, you would be hard pressed to find any authority anywhere who believes this theory. But the so-called cannibal kingdom hypothesis has a good deal in it's favour. For starters, why was history's only urban culture without large food animals also the only urban culture that regularly ate human flesh? Why did history never produce rampant canibalism in any urban culture that has sheep, goats, cattle or pigs? ... most historians say religious reasons ... However, the scale of Aztec human sacrifice was so far beyond most religious killing sthat it probably requires a special explanation. The Spanish Inquisition (32,000 killed) and the witch hunts (60,000 killed) simply can't compare to the Aztec sacrifice ... The body count [of the Aztec sacrifices] has been estimated as anything from 15,000 (Sherburne Cook) to 250,000 (Woodrow Borah) per year ... over the course of two centuries ... An estimate of 15,000 to 20,000 a year (total ~1.2 to 1.6 million) seems to be the most widely repeated one." (This section can be read completely at https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Atrocitology/Q5w9qmd1UeMC?hl=en&gbpv=1&printsec=frontcover)

He's saying that the theory has little/no academic support then (convincingly in my opinion) arguing that this is probably what happened. I'm very confused on how to take that.

I have no clue where to look for historical critique of books like this. Is this book historically accurate?

What are good sources to see what the academic response to a certain book is?