You remember correctly, I advised you to pick up some form of meditation. And if I remember correctly, I also said that if your path is a valid one, it should have something in that vein. So, if I'm correct (i.e. your path has some form of meditative practice) and if you don't apply all tools in your path's toolbox, you cannot hope to realize "its fruits". If your path, on the other hand, has no form of meditation, I'm afraid it is exactly as useless as pure armchair philosophy which can never arrive at Truth.

Yes, no science is 100% correct or exhaustive, but there is a degree of reliability of explanation. That is, if a theory is able to explain its coarser predecessors and make reliable predictions (e.g. quantum physics and theory of relativity don’t invalidate thermodynamics or Newtonian physics), and it allows for functional technology, its reliability is in the ballpark of "correct", "valid" and "confirmed". So, lets not play these linguistic pretzel games. No matter how outside of box you think, if your alternative hypotheses (!) don't have any of the aforementioned properties but you nevertheless continue to adhere to them, you are thinking inside a bubble of utter ignorance.

As for examples -- we already went through this exercise several times, so rather than me giving you examples for the nth time, I'd like you to provide an explanation how your "out of the box" hypotheses account for observable phenomena, how they can be tested, and what testable observations they predict. Unless you finally present a workable framework that is not just a word salad of scientific terminology, quote-mining, and/or a patchwork of superseded or disproved theories without any practical use whatsoever, I consider this conversation as closed.