What English revolution? The Glorious Revolution? That didn't happen until James II upset the Anglican Tories. It was an allied overthrow, not a Puritan victory.
Also, I think calling the American Revolution "led by Puritans" is a bit of an oversimplification. It was more of a Southern/Northern allied victory, and only New Englanders had a strong Puritan background. The South did start to get a Puritan influence over the course of the war and beyond it, though, as their traditional Anglicanism became unpopular, and they began to be converted to the Puritan-influenced Baptist religion. But even then, it's interesting that the most Puritan area of the country (New England) has become one of the less religious over time.
So I almost see the opposite pattern. Religious conservativism (in this case, Anglicans and traditional-Anglicans-becoming-Baptists) tends to lead to greater religious practice in the future than religious reformism and radicalism (in this case, Puritans, "true" Baptists, Quakers, etc.). It's not really inherent in the religion itself--different Lutherans have different patterns, different Baptists have different patterns, etc.--I think it's more of a product of how different groups use the same religion. It's just that closely-related groups with similar ideas tend to share the same religion (largely because culture influences religion so much and similar cultures tend to unite around things like religion), so you get a lot of correlation.
I've also read about how religious reformism and radicalism
bred Mormonism. I think "conversion" to atheism is a comparable process in terms of who is most susceptible. The most likely convert is one from a culture that encourages questioning, glorifies religious conversion, and has a diversity of sects within reach.