Don't think this person thought the refusal to allow a recording was a heresy, but I think they are onto something.
They are onto a certain cultish behavior of some priests. The same cultish and secretive behavior that lead to the SSPX apostasy.
That doesn't even make sense!
If there was even 1% of cult thinking in the priest in question (I'm part Irish, let's stop beating around the bush and just say his name: Bishop Zendejas) why wouldn't he WANT and even INSIST that we record and distribute his sermons? If this was about ANY kind of cult, including the cult of personality, recording and making sermons available would be the prime directive.
And how can you compare Bp. Z's policy on recording sermons with the SSPX? They couldn't be more exact opposites! The SSPX new direction, under Bishop Fellay, is about compromising on principles in order to get greater numbers, to get more people in the pews so they can "save the Church". If Bp. Z had even 1% of that thinking, wouldn't he be recording EVERY SINGLE SERMON so they could be distributed to others, and generate as much fame as possible?
The SSPX is all about fame, popularity, numbers, maximum influence, etc. now. To maximize a priest's influence, you want to reach those who can't make it to your Masses. A priest only has 24 hours in a day to talk to people, travel, say Mass, and basically influence people or build his fame. The best way to expand this is to have a book/sermon/website apostolate where people all over the country can reach or listen to "you" 24/7.
I would say Bp. Z's insistence that no one record his sermons is the exact OPPOSITE of this.
You can disagree with Bp. Z about his sermon policy -- THAT much is open for debate. But as for the two arguments you gave above? They DO NOT HOLD WATER from a reason or logic perspective, and that isn't open for debate. Those 2 arguments don't work at all, and that is cut-and-dried, case-closed by reason of simple logic and reason.
Now the question of Bp. Z being "right" about not recording/distributing his sermons -- THAT is open for debate.
A person can disagree with Bp. Z about something like the recording of sermons -- but that doesn't mean you can throw just anything at him, any negative charge at all, whether it makes sense or not! Why don't you come up with a VALID argument that actually holds water? For example, you could say he's over cautious or paranoid. I would still disagree with you, but at least that argument would make sense.