In a lab environment, wherein there is a lack of focus on far-field objects, myopia does not occur when there is sufficient light intensity. On the other hand, it occurs with insufficient light intensity.
If your hypothesis were correct, then myopia would occur regardless of light intensity, because all of the subjects have a lack of focus on far-field objects. But it doesn't. It only occurs with insufficient light intensity.
That's damning.
I can’t know the top science in every field, so that bars me from discussion, lest I be slammed for having a thought.
This isn’t just anti-science, it’s ignorant of social interactions, and the conversations that lead to greater understanding. You aren’t nearly as smart as you think you are.
On that note, I guess it's a little fun that you ending with "you aren’t nearly as smart as you think you are" seems to be participating in the same unnecessary meanness that you just called out. Ahhhh man, aren't we all so brutally human...
Then you need to read more on the matter.
Studies on chicks, tree shrews and rhesus monkeys show that simply increasing the amount of indoor light intensity has a protective effect on myopia. Scientists can induce more myopia in chicks simply by reducing light intensity. See https://iovs.arvojournals.org/article.aspx?articleid=2164963 and https://iovs.arvojournals.org/article.aspx?articleid=2355431
The leading hypothesis is that light stimulates the release of dopamine in the retina, and the dopamine blocks the elongation of the eye during development. One study showed that injecting a dopamine-inhbiting drug into the eyes of chicks abolished the protective effect of bright light, and myopia increased. See https://iovs.arvojournals.org/article.aspx?articleid=2126968
Your particular confidence on this ("strongly suspect") bothers me because it has an influence on others, yet it is totally ignorant of what current scientific findings suggest.