Not a buddhist, but 100% agree that this article is very lacking in depth in covering the hard fact that 'meditation' is not some singular practice - philosophi

Not a buddhist, but 100% agree that this article is very lacking in depth in covering the hard fact that 'meditation' is not some singular practice - philosophical/spiritual/psychological context of the practitioner and intent will absolutely have a massive impact on how meditation 'experiences' will be internalized - is the 'insight' I had actually spiritually beneficial, or simply my own attachments/preconceived notions playing tricks on me? Christian monastics have written tomes about the dangers of spiritual delusion arising in the course of practice (prelest); Without getting into theological debate about core teachings between various religions, I'm quite sure the same is true for any serious spiritual/religious ascetic discipline; The tendency in our culture to divorce the practices from their philosophical underpinnings to make them more 'consumable' by the uninitiated as seems to have happened here is likely a big contributing factor in cases such as this one, and the article completely sidesteps the point by falling victim to the same thinking .. In a similar vein I also find it quite ironic that the article attempts to reconcile 'meditation' as one monolithic topic that is either 'good' or 'bad' within scientific literature, while at the same time ignoring that 'scientific literature' itself has many studies of differing results from differing psychological treatment modalities, many of which could be viewed as 'meditative' in some casual sense (e.g. CBT, so called 'mindfulness meditation', schema therapy, etc)