[thevardanian]

I mean... That's exactly what the "you're just doing Buddhism wrong" crowd is saying.

There's a vast variety of methodologies and approaches to meditation, that come with their own effects, some bad some good. This is all quite well documented among the practitioners over the centuries. And beyond documentation, that's also why it's heavily suggested that one have guru or someone to actively guide and judge "progress", at least among the Hindus.

[Retric]

The study was looking at guided meditation which consisted of 60% of it’s sample. So, suggesting a guide on it’s own doesn’t solve the issue.

[thevardanian]

Having better guides is exactly what will solve the issue though. Unless you're making some kind of inherent argument, where all meditation is inherently nebulous and impervious to methodological approaches.

The guides may or may not be qualified. So the real problem is the lack systematization of it in meditation, more specifically a more reliable metric to judge "guides". As the extensive literature on meditation quite clearly outlines the limitations and dangers of various practices.

Tantra for example is quite clear about the dangers of practicing it.

[Retric]

Suggesting the guides themselves are the problem is a different testable idea. I am not saying it’s wrong, but without knowing what guidance is better there isn’t anyway for someone to implement it.