We know more about changes at the elite level because the archaeological and literary evidence favors it and yes there was a significant shift in patronage but the Bhakti movements grew at the popular level too.
Buddhism in that time and place was entirely monastic. If you were a layman you could support the sangha but you kept your existing dharmic commitments. You were not exclusively “Buddhist” unless you became a monk. Also it seems the condition of nuns had become rather bad.
Shaivism etc. by contrast had a complete path that addressed worldly concerns as well as liberation, for householders as well as ascetics and accessible to men and women of all castes.
