No, but success brings out nothing but contrarians. You don't get an article on hacker news saying everything is fine and working well even if that is the reality.
You can't make money selling alternative medicine by claiming that medicine works. Newer languages, in my opinion, are going backwards in a lot of ways out of fear of ideas that shouldn't be feared.
The fact that vaccines are widely used doesn't make anti-vax stupid. Anti-vax is stupid, because a lot of real research has gone into vaccines, and they really do work. The arguments anti-vaxers use are not based on reality, and can easily be proven wrong. The same can NOT be said about programming paradigms.
There is no proof that OOP produces more elegant, simpler, higher quality software with smaller programming effort than other paradigms. OOP isn't proven to work; it's proven to be an attractive choise
Show me that an alternative to OOP is statically more successful and I'll switch tomorrow.
It seems like you really want it out to be merely popularity rather than being simply successful. That's not a rational position.
OOP isn't super terrible, but it does mix some good ideas with bad ones. Newer languages tend to not be fully "OOP" but do include some of the better ideas from it. OOP isn't the end-goal of programming, it's a stepping stone.
Same applies to functional programming by the way; a lot of non-functional languages include various features pioneered in functional programming languages.