So, yes. That is good. I am familiar with that. It is one of what I would call a “family” of secular verbal renditions of “ultimate reality”. However, as only one of such renditions, it can be supplemented by others, equally authentic, that emphasize different aspects of the human situation. Daoism’s complete detachment might be compared to Buddhism’s concern with behavior and interpersonal relationships (compassion, desirelessness). And so, one enters into a world of inquiry that is not actually “thinking”. All of this language arises from Voegelin’s “dead point”. (This is “experience”, and the resulting language is “doctrine”.)
So, I think it is a useful “inquiry matrix” to look into this family of experiences. They seem to be basic and essential to the complete human experience.
Religion of course is an entirely different problem. It is, generally, doctrine divorced from authentic experience, but twisted and roiled by intervening experiences, the anxieties of particular cultural situations. E.g., the cathedrals and the Eucharist of medieval Europe being a masterful psychotropic mechanism designed to help that population recover from pandemic trauma. And, once recovery progresses, they shift gradually from being psychotropic devices to being museums (or fire stations, as in my neighborhood), and the like.
So, the contemporary issue always is, the recovery of said ultimate experience (and the recovery from trauma).