I think these sort of comparison are too subjective. You clearly have your point of view. And " l me mine"
They're not really though are they? If define - for example - that a dog is a certain species having certain characteristics then you can fit into this category animals that meet your criteria.
You COULD argue that a cat is a dog and try to change the goalposts (atheists do this all the time) but it's really a pointless activity if you're trying to do anything other than score a point or win an argument. The point is that the label that's being applied is not to 'win' but to be able to use and assess the thing labelled.
In this case we're discussing something that esoteric and wisdom traditions call 'enlightenment'. You may or may not believe in this concept and that's fine. But what it IS in the abstract is (regardless of whether it exists objectively) surely how it is defined by these traditions.
Put another way, all esoteric traditions - without exception afaik (you may have a counter example) - claim that the end-goal of their practice takes a long time and is the result of ongoing practice.
People maybe
argue for the psychedelic Jesus or psychedelic Buddha or psychedelic Muhammad or whoever but what they can never do (again afaik - you may be able to argue against it with examples) is actually show authentic texts from these traditions that show Jesus/Moses/Zen Master X etc actually saying "just take this.... you don't need any other practice, this will get you to the status of
insert Guru here". It just isn't out there.
All that can be really done is to take those traditions and try to insert Kesey or whoever into them.