"It's very embarrassing," she explains. "We're intellectuals, we're on the left, we're not supposed to talk like that." And by "that", she means
"I was completely dumbfounded but I actually had this vision of... of Jesus, and I'm sure it was Jesus... But it wasn't this crazy theological thing; it was just this figure who was the most perfected human being - full of light and full of love. And completely accessible. Any of us could be like that. There was light coming out of him holographically, simply because he was unclouded. But any of us could become that as human beings."Well, call it a crazy theological thing, but any of us could not be like that as mere human beings.
Quelle buzzkill, millinerd. Isn't it out of line to critique someone else's private mystical encounter with some wet blanket theology? No more than it would be out of line for someone familiar with basic astronomy to gently correct a newcomer to the field who looked at the stars and in genuine wonder remarked "Wow, there must be thousands of them." A misintereptation of a mystical encounter in no way nullifies the encounter, and good theology can only serve to enhance it.
That being said, pardon me while I get over my Acts Niner.