Proofs that cannot be grasped are like unproven truths. Worth very little... They only stand through the credibility of the inventor. It downgrades the mathematician to a politician.

If it were a giant Coq term then sure, you can ignore those pesky details like "understandability".

I would not agree with that. One can do math for personal pleasure.

You can draw all the squiggly lines on paper that you want, but it won't mean anything until someone else interpets it. You cannot prove logic that only exists in your own head, because you cannot prove yourself rational. Your very existence does not even make sense without other people perceiving you.

Math in the form of a research community which has built up centuries of work for each other to further build on? Absolutely.

The proof can be completely fine, but if no one can understand it then it won't be accepted.