This is akin to suggesting that someone interested in Christianity should read the Bible or an anthology of it before diving into modern interpretations that might strip away key religious elements.

Something I found amusing about reading the Bible is that the book is undeniably religious, but the religion in it isn't Christianity. God doesn't promise Abraham eternal life in Heaven. He promises inclusive genetic fitness.

Genesis 22:17: I will surely bless you and make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and as the sand on the seashore. Your descendants will take possession of the cities of their enemies.

After reading the parent comment by Mascal's Pugging, I too bought a copy of In the Words of the Buddha so I could familiarize myself with the Pali canon. I read 14% of the way through the book, got bored, and moved on to other things. Like Kaj Sotala, I found it interesting solely for anthropological and historical reasons. I did find it worthwhile to read part of the book, if for no other reason than to know what I'm not missing.

Facets of Buddhism are undeniably religious. Last summer, I flew to Taiwan to attend the Buddhist funeral of my grandfather. We attached my grandfather's disembodied soul to a plaque and I carried it to its final resting place in a Buddhist temple. Whenever we crossed over running water, (even if it was a nearly-invisible canal) I verbally notified my grandfather's disembodied soul so that he wouldn't get washed away by the water. I did the same thing when passing through doorways.

We gave him food for the afterlife, just like el Día de los Muertos.

That's superstition. My only hesitation against calling it a "religion" is a pedantic nitpick around how the Western ontology of "religion" as a discrete unit was invented by monotheists; therefore "polytheistic religion" constitutes non-cladistic thinking. Except we chanted the Amida Buddha's name too, and Amida Buddhism qualifies as a religion even by that nitpicky standard.

but overall the task of figuring out what can be trusted seems hard enough that one would be better off by just ignoring the whole thing and going with what we've learned about meditation in more secular contexts

I feel the same way, noting that "more secular" does not mean "entirely secular". Last weekend, I wanted information about life after Stream Entry. I found a good book on the subject: The End of Your World: Uncensored Straight Talk on the Nature of Enlightenment, by Adyashanti. The book is ruthlessly empirical, but it is also from the Zen tradition and quotes the Dao De Jing, which means it's not unadulturatedly secular, either.

Meanwhile, the scientific journals are still trying to figure out for sure whether meditation reduces anxiety. Imagine writing a grant proposal for a large-scale double-blinded study of whether intense meditation for three decades years causes psychosis. How would you even do a proper control group? We've got people who have built a city on Mount Everest and the scientists are still debating whether the Himalayas really exist.

Is this written by AI?

This is great editing feedback. Thank you. I have made a change to my use of italics that makes the typography a little less confusing.

I've added a note to explain why the probabilities add up to less than 100%.

As for your last pedantic stylistic point: you are completely correct. I have fixed it. Thanks.

Thanks again. I fixed it for real this time.

It was a typo. Fixed. Thanks.

This is the exact conversation I hoped to find in the comments.

Thanks. I fixed "succumb".

Fixed. Thanks.

Even if the check is good, I would rather miss out on $5 than attend a Zoom meeting.