That's total BS on par with average rank-and-file Christians claiming to speak for God. In other words, it's self-aggrandizement of the highest order, also called total "spiritual" hubris. It reminds me of those super wealthy "gurus" who explain their hoarding with their detachment from material things. Lol. But also barf.

Yes, naturalism was almost certainly part of the roots of early Buddhism. Empiricism definitely. And I would say that that was also the case of Vedic Hinduism before it got lost and Buddhism even became necessary -- Gautama was Hindu after all, but his teachers were somehow not "there" as the story goes. Just as a side note, and it may sound far fetched, but I'm pretty much convinced that the same applies to early Judaic tradition (Abraham, Melchizedek, etc.), as well as its Mosaic and Nazarene revivals, though the latter basically started and ended with Yeshua.

Now for scientific interpretation of nature -- I'd say that it's correct as far as naturalism goes, but in its insistence on atheism, it a priori rejects substantial "part" of nature so is rather incomplete. Point being, "standard" scientific naturalist will reject God or anything that even remotely smells of spirituality and religion, unless it's just part of history or social studies. And that results in various, seemingly insurmountable hard problems, or the notion that lack of meaning poses a problem. Yet, the question should be, what do those ancient concepts mean?

In any case, that something is not good does not mean it is evil, and conversely, that something is not evil does not mean it is good. Homeostasis rules but there is nothing wrong with departing from it. And causation is the ultimate arbiter. I personally cannot consider it other than perfect. And that's the gist of it.