A lot of ascetic insight might be attributed to attention. Even though the monks were approaching spirits with considerable prejudice, at least they would, on some level, communicate with and observe them, lifting the lid on the Pandora’s black box of (un)consciousness.
Is the modern psychology any better? Seems like it retains a focus for keeping an eye on the external factors and behaviors, on which it has accumulated a great deal of statistics. There could be a lack of common ground, of a math-like language, which would open up the black box of the mind to populistic examination and curiosity.
Andrey Devyatov likes to mention how by a certain year the invisible will become visible (referring to the likes of Revelation). One wonders if Neuralink, by making the spirits described in the Affective Neuroscience by Jaak Panksepp accessible to a hacker and a matter of public concern, would be a stepping stone to this.
In a sense, it should render at least some of the unconscious spirits visible, allowing humanity at large to adopt a different outlook on the development of its consciousness.