My reaction to this part of the video was "yup, that checks out—nice work all around, everyone". My path out was similar in some ways.
However, the video then went on to say that many of them end up shifting into a personalized mixture of notions. They draw these from many potential sources. For some of them, a source can even be a version of Christianity with the unlikeable portions crudely shaved off. They're still "spiritual" and "deep". They find meaning through connecting with the supernatural plane. They might say that people are beings who are more than crude matter and that they stretch out with their feelings to make contact with their concept of a god.
My reaction to this part of the video was a massive (mental) facepalm and an exasperated sigh.
Don't misinterpret. I'm pleased that there's a trend of younger generations setting themselves free from the tyranny of the inaccurate beliefs that ruled the generations that came before them. But come on. This end result sounds much more like embracing shallow fashions than genuine philosophical sophistication.
It reeks of straightforwardly replacing your parents' beliefs with your peers', or perhaps with beliefs spread by a popular cultural figure or some anonymous internet blogger. The crux is that swallowing the replacement beliefs also actually requires heaping portions of faith. Admittedly, the necessary faith might be less obvious than reciting the traditional verbal creeds pushed onto religious converts.
On the other hand, replacing the old faith-based beliefs with faith-based beliefs from other cultures is hardly an improvement either. Just because a faith-belief is less familiar doesn't imply that it's a window on some larger untapped reality. (Nor should embracing a faith-belief from another culture prove that the believer is amazingly open-minded and interesting.)
Finally, a faith-belief that's more vague isn't an automatic upgrade from a faith-belief that's sharply defined. Real stuff tends to support hard ideas. A real brick wall isn't "sorta there and sorta not", at least when you're trying to walk through it. I'd venture that if supernatural stuff were real, the beliefs that express it in solid terms are more convincing than the beliefs that (rather suspiciously) won't make any claims that could be checked.
In short, I'm disappointed that their skepticism remains unfinished. They stopped short. By all means, skepticism of U.S. evangelicalism is a prime starting point. But I think they would reach more accurate conclusions if they turned a skeptical eye on the alternatives as well. The truth is that the experiences of getting tingly sensations and sensing an oceanic awareness are more or less universal. Using them as supposed evidence of any one viewpoint about reality is unjustified. People fit them into whatever frame of faith-beliefs they had beforehand, or they make one up in response.
That said, everybody loves to intentionally misunderstand such recommendations. Thorough skepticism about a unifying force behind reality doesn't mean that people shouldn't try to be unified. Thorough skepticism about an afterlife doesn't mean that people shouldn't be compassionate and thoughtful about the effects they leave behind on reality when they pass. Thorough skepticism about an Ultimate Meaning of the whole cosmos doesn't mean that people shouldn't strive to develop and follow a comprehensive meaning for their own lives. Thorough skepticism about a soul that inhabits a person, like a ghost haunting a house, doesn't mean that people shouldn't do what they can to improve their handling of their brain's thoughts and emotions.
The aim is to recognize that we as people can thrive without any of the nonsense. We can just leave it behind and reapply whatever behaviors from the old culture that we find beneficial, simply because the behaviors are beneficial, not because the behaviors must continue to be backed by inaccurate views.
