If everything has a purpose then evil doesn't exist

[The Grand Nudger]

-and I think this has gone so long I'm just going to have to try to give you an assist.  There's a disturbingly easy response to moral objections to theism.  When some supposedly good god is said to have done or commanded horrid shit...that's not god saying that - that's his ghostwriters.  Maybe that's why god always looks like the ideal tribal chieftan of whatever fucking hellhole he comes from?

God's up there watching this....The Real One™.....and is not amused.  Now, I get that you have some latent compulsions to inerrantism bouncing around in your head, but consider this.  Just as above, if you insist for reasons of inerrantism that god DID TOO! order the code red....then you are not refuting the moral objection - you're confirming it's fundamental validity.

which is Why I am separating God from man's objective moral standard.

Making God's will the source of his righteousness and not some arbitrary/objective standard making God answerable to man.

That way God can in fact the Order 'Santiago's Code Red' and retain 100% perfect righteousness. Even if it violates man's objective standards.

like I said, 'not even on the visible spectrum.'

If you remove god from objective standards, you lose the ability to make claims like "gods righteousness".  There's nothing right about it, not really, unless metaethical objectivity is true.  Outside of that, god's righteousness is merely gods godness.  Or gods opinions on stuff.  Or gods rules for being in his club.  None of these things concern me and none are morally binding because they aren't about morality at all. You don't appear to be convinced by metaethical non cognitivism, subjectivity, or relativity yourself......

That you're looking for a way to make not just apparent evil but actual evil "perfect righteousness" is..to put it mildly...disturbing.  Maybe you should look into holding that amoral or immoral position genuinely?  It would be less work, less bullshit, and amount to the same metaethical outcome.

It is interesting to wonder whether a vision quest can succeed by those criteria you offered - of novelty and externality.  I don't think it's clear that it would.  If a vision quest is to be anything different from normal empirical observation - it seems like we'd be discussing some sort of inward-searching.  Whether we can acquire something we don't already possess by looking inward is an open question.  OTOH, I'm sure we can come up with novel arrangements of items already possessed.  

A hard requirement for externality probably does endanger most of what we refer to as a vision quest to being unsuccessful.

If you talk to a true savant, many of them sometimes speak (If they can Speak) of an experience where they are like a passenger in a car going for a ride, or a movie theater goer where their primary conscious is set aside and this secondary 'consciousness' completely independent of their waking mind takes over and allows them to paint photo realistic scenes with no formal training, or perform write music on a Mozart level. Not saying this is how vision quests work. I'm just demonstrating a plausible avenue that is in fact a well known and scientifically documented avenue which similar phenoma occur (where information outside of a person's scope age or ability is imparted to them on a scale that could not normally originate from the individual.)

None of which seems to be an issue of externality.  You explicitly mention that these savants have no formal training so..whatever theyre up to would appear to be coming from within.  Thus, they may paint well, or they may play well - but this would not be a successful vision quest by your own stated metrics.