Ditto to @Secespitus. Readers will interpret a story in terms of their own world view.
Just for example, on another forum we were discussing Arthur C Clarke's short story, "The Nine Billion Names of God". Without going into details about that story or giving any spoilers, it's about a group of monks of an unusual religion, and the story ends with the hero learning that the seemingly crazy beliefs of these monks are true: their god really exists.
I don't believe in the religion of the story -- no one does, it was just invented for the book. When it got to the end and the monks' religion was proven true, my reaction was, "Ha ha, so their crazy religion is true!" I didn't see it as a blasphemous attack on my own religion or anything like that because it was just a story and it was a made-up religion. But two atheists in the conversation insisted on trying to "interpret" the ending in a way that did not make the monks' religion true. They pointed out scientific flaws and said that this proved the author did not mean that the ending literally happened that way, that he must have meant it was some sort of illusion, etc., and, to my mind, tied themselves in knots trying to explain why the author didn't mean what he said.
If I read a story where the ending "proves" some religious or political or social or whatever idea that I disagree with, my reaction is generally, "Oh brother, does the author think he's going to convert me to this belief because he arranges a FICTION story where they turn out to be right?" But apparently some readers insist on finding an interpretation of the story that is consistent with their own beliefs, rather than just say, "Oh, I disagree with the author about this."
I read an article by the well-known science fiction writer Isaac Asimov once in which he said that he once attended a lecture in which, he was surprised to hear, the lecturer used one of Asimov's stories to make a point, explaining the professor's interpretation of the story. Afterwards Asimov talked to the professor and said that that wasn't what the story meant at all. He said that after arguing for some time, he made his clincher argument "After all, I'm the author!" The professor was unimpressed, and calmly replied, "Just because you wrote the story, what makes you think you know anything about it?"
My point -- and I do have a point -- is that you shouldn't work too hard to give your story multiple interpretations. Deliberately create a LITTLE ambiguity. But readers will find all sorts of unintended ambiguity, so if you go too far, the story becomes too much of a blank. You have to give the reader material to work with.
Every now and then I attend a lecture where the speaker says, "Rather than give a prepared presentation, I'll just open the floor for questions." This almost invariably results in awkward silence and then some lame, vague, general questions. Because without a prepared presentation, what are we going to ask questions about? If someone gave a lecture on, say, the role of General Foobar in the American Revolution, it might bring all sorts of questions to mind. Why did Foobar order a retreat in the Battle of Podunk? What was Foobar's role in the peace negotiations? Where did Foobar get his military training? etc., etc. But if someone just says, "I'm a historian. Do you have any questions about history?" where would we start?