1) I was deliberately leaving open the definition of Enlightenment--how we define Enlightenment, I think, is not the point. It shouldn't matter what is happening inside someone's brain or how they describe their experience if what we are weighing is the worldly impact of that experience, unless that inner experience can be communicated or translated into something socially tangible. If Enlightenment is supposed to bring "infinite compassion," as some describe, what's the actual delta for the un-enlightened as a result?
2) If you think Enlightenment is a good, like any other, than it can be priced. There is an opportunity cost to pursuing it or not. We should be transparent about the tradeoffs that come from pursuing Enlightenment, just as we should the tradeoffs of specializing in any one thing to the detriment of others. I am worried that we talk about Enlightened people the way Plato talks about philosopher kings. This is a great Buddhist parable on this topic: https://www.ibiblio.org/zen/gateless-gate/2.html
3) My article is not trying to make a point; each day I ask questions. My aim is to stimulate thinking, not refute or defend a position, though of course I have biases. No snark is intended. I believe the skepticism I evince is not in opposition to strands of Zen, but consonant with them.
4) There are good reasons to be pluralistic about our definition of Enlightenment, otherwise we become sectarian and intolerant and that is how religious wars start. On the other hand, maybe there is one true Enlightenment--but can you insist on that and not become theocratic? I'm not sure.