I don’t think that there are any minor religions that practice human sacrifice, either. For one thing, it is hard to believe that anyone today believes that human death achieves anything positive of a religious nature. For another, there can hardly be any country in the world that would not account such a practice as murderous and subject to legal process, with severe consequences.
One therefore wonders quite why this topic should be of concern. If there is concern, one might consider non-religious factors, or factions, rather than religious ones. It is possible that, in past times, populations under economic stress relieved that condition to some extent by killing, and this was ritualised in order to make the process seem easier for those doing the killing, and indeed to make the process less disagreeable, even welcome, for victims. In modern times populations have arguably relieved this stress more radically, and with less euphemism, by simple genocides, those of Stalin, Pol Pot and Hitler (and perhaps Napoleon of his own troops) being the most notable. Human sacrifice is very arguably not, at base, a religious phenomenon, but an economic one.
However, the question concerns alleged historic ritual sacrifice of humans mentioned in the Bible. There is no such event anywhere mentioned in the Bible, except where condemned outright- Deuteronomy and Leviticus expressly forbid this practice. There was a contemporary practice of some, from N. Africa through the ME to the Indus Valley, to sacrifice children to a god or gods, probably to relieve crisis situations, such as war or starvation by drought. It was this ritual practice that Abram was probably very familiar with from his country of origin, and he may not have thought the command to sacrifice his son so very strange; this is what provides context for the event on Moriah. Genesis states that he was tested, and this was, we may suppose, have been with regard to his faith; and his faith was that through Isaac, the promised son of a couple over childbearing age, he would be the father of very many. The text tells us that God already knew that Abram was justified (held to be righteous) because of this belief- but Abram himself did not know it. It was only when he discovered his knife in his hand that he realised that he really had faith in his god. The theme of justification by active faith is the distinctive message of the Bible, and this event has no connexion with the ancient practice of human sacrifice, except as outmoded social context. The substitution of a ram for Isaac had practical value in establishing that only animals henceforth be killed, and allegorical value that adds to the Biblical message of substitutionary atonement- one of the intended consequences of which is that people will not be killed, for any reason. This is quite the reverse of the intention supposed in the OP.
The Bible reports that many, such as Amalekites and Canaanites, were killed by Israelites, and Egyptians by God himself, and another message of the Bible is intended here. The Bible’s premises are that there is an existence beyond this one; and that it is a permanent one. Moreover, the condition experienced in the permanent one is contingent upon decisions taken in this one, and may be welcome, or the reverse. It therefore makes sense to stimulate the realisation of this situation, and if people have suffered and indeed died to that end, it should cause no surprise. So, if the rapid despatch of Amalekites and Canaanites has a purpose, it is to show people today that there is much worse experience than a quick physical death, or even a slow one. While the Bible deity forbids murder, personal violence of any sort, or even hatred, it allows for execution of criminals (and perhaps warfare, too) and this can be taken as warning of an even more defining ‘legal process’ than obtains in this experience.
Certainly Jephthah was involved in warfare against the enemies of Israel, whose moral stance was often an irritation to its neighbours. Jephthah promised that, in return for victory, he would sacrifice whatever emerged though the gates of his dwelling. He probably envisaged an animal, a dog coming to meet him. It is clear from the text that he was much distressed that his daughter emerged, anyway; no intention to sacrifice any human can be enforced from this event. Certainly, here was no ritual, because no precedent existed (and this awful event certainly created no precedent); the event was ‘happenstance’, an accident that may have been used by a deity to make a point. The daughter died, but her memory did not die, which had the effect of reminding Israelites of the defeat of their enemy in battle, by which they themselves survived. Again, there is allegorical significance in the death of an ‘innocent’ in exchange for the lives of the not-so-innocent, and if that allegory helps to save souls, the death of the body of the daughter is justifiable, in Biblical terms; and it may be that the daughter will fully agree.
There was no ritual involved in the death of Jesus, reckoned to be truly innocent- and it was no accident, either. The Biblical view is that Jesus was not, in the present context, human, but divine- so we have the deity willingly dying, without any human intention to offer sacrifice; so not a single word of ‘ritual human sacrifice’ can be said to necessarily apply in this case. A more apt description could be ‘deicide’. Now if the creator, the creator of morality via the creation of the cosmos, decides that he will take the blame for the evils of his creation, which part of that creation can protest?
I may be a Pro, but still third string.