Yeah, please leave the cultural analysis to anthropologists, sociologists, etc. The engineering-focused materialist way of looking at stuff like this makes my head and heart hurt.
Why gatekeep like this? If you had developed an interesting account of some engineering topic and were told to leave it to the pros, you would find it deflating
Whether monastic materialism or idealism is correct would be an unfalsifiable claim within the framework of natural scientific method. (That method is designed to help us make predictions; interpreting experimental outcome for a statement of objective truth is a misapplication of scientific method.) An existing natural-scientific model can be referenced in a philosophical argument, but the argument remains a philosophical statement. A philosophical argument can still be debated on other merits—e.g., which alternative grants magical objective existence to more arbitrary entities, or such.
The human concept of materialism appears to have been produced by historical humans who were also conscious, which at least sets an order. To call this into question is to render logical debate incoherent.
Materialism is a theory, not a reality, but its adherents can't tell the difference.
> To call this into question is to render logical debate incoherent.
Unfortunately there are quite a few things of that nature. In no case does it justify blindly picking one of the options and then following up with bold claims based on an arbitrary assumption.