I think that ultimately this question is opinion based, but it is interesting and has already generated one good answer so we should leave it open.
I think the premise in the first line is unsupported, "Appealing to the divine is a convenient way of making the subjective, objective."
There are a number of ways to answer the question - the best is the test that @Semaphore suggests - a textual artifact indicating that the results of a divination are unacceptable for political reasons. I believe there are multiple examples of that happening. If I recall correctly, the Roman campaign against Hannibal featured several battles that were delayed because the general rejected the augury and sent the augur back for another try. Was that the result of the generals subverting the divine process, or was that the action of a devout general who would not reconcile the augury with the tactical situation. Every divination involves some interpretation, and should always reject interpretations that are at odds with observed reality.
Henry IV's quote "Paris is worth a mass" might fit into the category, although he wasn't attempting to influence society through religion, he was abandoning his fidelity in favor of political objectives. But I cannot say for sure that his comment was completely cynical.
The Chinese dictum of the "Mandate of Heaven" could be invoked - I'm not a Chinese scholar, but I understand this to be a principle that can only be applied ex post facto - the ruler has the Mandate of Heaven, and the only people who can be shown to not have the Mandate of Heaven are deposed and failed rulers. Is this subversion, or a sincere belief that heaven favors the king?
Henry VIII of England, Defender of the Faith, abandoned the Roman Catholic faith because of a contradiction between his duty to his dynasty and his duty to his faith, as interpreted by the political decisions of a religious authority. Was that subversive, or a sincere conversion?
Constantine fought under the symbol of the cross, but delayed conversion to Christianity for years. Some claim that was an example of subversion, others insist that it was a sincere conversion but mediated by political realities.
There are many who assert that the Salem witch trials were an example of young girls living in an oppressively religious household subverting the numinous for practical reasons. Lord Bragg's recent podcast on the subject seems to argue that Tituba subverted her experience with the supernatural to fit a social narrative, influencing them away from killing her.
The conversion of Egypt under Amenhotep and the subsequent recidivism has also been posed as an example.
Similar accusations have been levelled against Pope Urban VIII whose condemnation of Galileo may have been based on the will of God or on the good of the church.
I've read so many narratives that I've lost track, but the last dozen times I encountered writings on the Delphic Oracle, the narratives have assumed that the utterances of the Oracle were bent to fit political realities.
Ultimately all religious leaders act in a nebulous area between faith, pragmatics and inspiration. They make choices that are probably sincere - it would take an act of spectacular arrogance to document ones own heresy.