A Basic Definition of Spirituality (of True Faith)

[Angrboda]

And my point is: Before I even laid my hand on Gustave Le bon (which is a BS writer don’t even bother to read him), more spiritual teachings were already telling me that all of this is nonsense.
 
True spirituality is like true psychotherapy. It does liberate us from falsehoods and strengthens us in doing good-constructive deeds.
 
And this is my personal experience of it. I can’t really say that I can prove or demonstrate anything to you
 

This assumes there is a true spirituality which you can practice. The reality is you're simply reapplying spiritual techniques and understandings that someone else developed -- you're not creating anything based upon first person examination, you're using existing spiritual ideas as a bootstrap, with much the same problem as you have with reason. The spiritual techniques which, to be blunt, you are borrowing, not creating, are infected with the same viewpoint issues as secular rational bodies of knowledge. As a Hindu, I can tell you that the different Hindu schools all tell the tale of Hinduism and their Hindu rivals differently, reserving the crown jewel for whatever Hindu school the writer happens to subscribe to themselves. And Buddhism is the same way. Christianity, the same. And none of it is original. And this is because while you portray spirituality as something that you can practice fresh, without borrowing from others, you really can't. Sitting alone and contemplating will not get you a worthwhile spiritual practice. You'll simply end up stewing in whatever juices you've mentally accumulated over time. Like it or not, spirituality isn't a solitary practice. Spirituality is a social practice wherein groups, movements, institutions, and societies lay out both the basic blueprint and outline and on toward the details. You like to think that you're discovering and implimenting something authentic, but you're not; you're just combining old parts in your own unique way, without ever escaping the problems with those old parts. You may suggest that some commonality points toward a genuine core existing, but that's just a theory. It's far more likely that common core is simply a reflection of the fact that human nature expresses itself similarly within social processes, and a core of common items represents their greater evolutionary fitness within social process, regardless of whether those parts themselves have any inherent fitness or genuineness.

A good example is Zen Buddhism. The Zen Buddhist argues that by engaging in sitting practice, you are stripping away all artifice. But the theory and technique of this stripping away depends upon large chunks of metaphysical artifice, without which, zazen becomes just daydreaming.