I see this as justification rhetoric to support the idea that metaphysical assertions are potentially accurate by trying to conflate the idea of evidence with a claim about metaphysical content and I find it to be absurd from my perspective. If a person with a scientifically informed ontology does not form a belief about something like an afterlife, that is not a metaphysical claim anymore than my lack of an opinion about invisible giant turtles living in clouds is a metaphysical claim.

Note that I defined psychological insights as increased self awareness. However if the insight itself is based on inaccurate information it isn't an actual insight into psychology.

Here is the first definition of insight that arises using a search:

If the so called insight is based on inaccurate information then by definition it is not an insight but is a delusion and from my perspective this only supports my assertion about how the feeling of truth is unable to actually allow an individual to identify and discern what is true.

Moreover our individual perspectives are clearly unable to be reconciled and I'm not interested in arguing or engaging with those who consider a lack of specific metaphysical claims or beliefs to be a type of metaphysical claim or belief so this will be the last time we interact.