I don’t know if I’d disagree with ‘meaning’ or ‘knowledge sufficient for individ

I don’t know if I’d disagree with ‘meaning’ or ‘knowledge sufficient for individual action’ which is I think your intention. My problem is different: judicial and political – when we are in conflict, or perhaps more importantly, when people use non-testimonial methods to achieve personal to political ends while engaging in the spectrum of baiting into hazard that constitutes so much of human discourse.

The only problem is the mixed bag of say, religion, or say marxist pseudoscience, which attempts to achieve a good by fictionalist means (deception), that by externality causes harm – and all religions it turns out caused as much harm as they did good.
But the three philosophical traditions of europeanism, confucianism, and original buddhism, … each was defeated by some other ‘religion’ because the original non false solutions to the expansion of human numbers were inaccessible by too much of the population.
In other words, the upper intellectual classes can produce non-false non-bad philosophies that fulfill the demands of any religion in producing mindfulness. But they are not available to far too much of the population that is less cognitively evolved (or carrying too much genetic load).
This is … depressing.
What we can learn however, is that it just means we must spend more on indoctrination than we have so far. Religions are cheap indoctrination. Education is expensive indoctrination. But it may require expensive indoctrination to leave behind our vulnerability the hazards of easily accessible religions as a means of achieving mindfulness.