I think this misses a bit of what's going on. What Buddhism does when it encounters pre-existing religious traditions is that it relativizes them. Previously, t

I think this misses a bit of what's going on. What Buddhism does when it encounters pre-existing religious traditions is that it relativizes them. Previously, the existence of the gods or mythic figures was considered an absolute truth. Post-Buddhism, the enlightened mind is absolute reality, and everything else is relative - to culture, history, etc. For instance, a Tibetan Buddhist might visualise a deity, supplicate the deity, "interact" with the deity in various ways, but would still ultimately recognise that the deity is an empty appearance. But, since everything else is an empty appearance too, the question is simply whether engagement with the deity is a skilful practice. Which it might be - perhaps the practice fosters social cohesion, or helps with emotional regulation, or whatever. It can't really be "supernatural nonsense", since to be "supernatural" would require that it is beyond the nature of mind, which is absolute.