I think not. The cognitive scientists are eager to point out that that people who are members of religious/spiritual groups are doing actually better in many indicators of a “good life”.

As an incognito scientist n=1 says I have seen "more church" happen, and I will probably always prefer more cowbell instead.

Sometimes a wayward son needs to carry on if they're going to find truth before they're done.

Is this the type of comment you think belongs here?

Someone was once quoted as having said that mankind will not truly be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest; while I don't generally condone violence, I am of the opinion that they might indeed have been on to something.

There's a difference between religion and church as an organisation with structure. As much as I grew up with catholic church all around and hope it goes down at some point, I don't mind people having the related religion. You don't need any priest to tell you what beliefs are correct or not.

Kings and priests are machinations of man, they exist not as external adversaries, blights unto who would otherwise be naturally enlightened, but a salve to our deep, innate need for surety, protection, charms against the fear of the unknown.

If it's true that mankind won't be truly free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest, mankind won't truly ever be so, because it'll invariably be the last one to die who is the king, and the one before, the priest. We might as well make peace with it.

That read like poetry

It cannot be an illness of the mind to explore why we exist through alternative methods, when scientific methods have thus far proven insufficient.

The "god of the gaps" is because people can't handle the uncertainty that comes from the answer "We don't know yet", which is what science offers.

"Why do we (humanity) exist?" "Because our species evolved to this state."

"Yes, but why are we capable of asking why do we exist?" "Because our species evolved the intelligence necessary to understand our existence."

"Yes, but why did our species evolve with the intelligence we have?" "Because it was an adaption to our environment that made our offspring more likely to survive."

"Yes, but existentially, why does all this exist to the point where we evolved to that state?" "Life evolved on Earth, we don't know how that process began. We have some theories, but nothing proven."

"That's not good enough!" "Sorry, that's all we've got so far."

This has been discussed for a very long time:

https://www.britannica.com/topic/first-cause

I believe this philosophy go even further back into the various Vedas of ancient times too, which also discussed multi-dimensionality and everything consisting of frequencies / vibration. The Gods are really encoded symbols and personifications for various aspects of Cosmos (creation, maintenance, destruction, etc).

Some people seek into the mystical. Other people seek into science. Some people don't seek, and for them there's less logic. Logic though, can also be something that binds you to falsehoods. Revisiting first principles again and again is healthy, but really tough work.

Science and meditation should go hand in hand. Being brilliant is no safeguard against personal angst and delusions.

We don't know yet, is the perfectly fine answer. It's OK to seek too, which is how people find new solutions.