Religion itself isn't even a single answer - it's a personal decision that applies to someone however they choose to apply it in their lives. You may see it as a "relationship with god," but the next person may see it as a set of teachings to live by.

There's not "the" way, there's many ways to find balance or self-enlightenment (even the goals can vary from person to person!) A 'rational person' would never conclude that "their answer may also apply to me," a rational person would find their own answer, whether that answer incorporate 16th century teachings or modern-age psychiatric evaluation.

The validity is not in the source material. It is in the effectiveness. Something that's "effective for thousand" or "a million" guarantees effectiveness for the next person as much as flipping a coin 99 times and getting all heads guarantees the next flip yields heads - with each new person, you get a new mind, and whether or not that mind is compatible with those beliefs is a toss-up.

Faith and reason may both have value, and they may be compatible, but you can't rest the former on the latter.

"Sorry, just because he personally doesn't have an answer does not mean everyone else does not."

He's not talking about a solution for your problem. He's talking about solving the problem for everyone. You don't have the answer that will work for everyone. You have an answer that works for you. That's it. It might work for others.

Claiming that you have the answer might do real harm to others as well. So be careful with what you say, because the way you are saying it is harmful and discouraged by professionals.

Nothing against people trying things, and if it's not harmfull and may help them, I'm all for it. But you wouldn't convince me with tens of millions of badly selected data points.

What if that anecdote is about Lord Krishna? What will you say?

It seems the court of Christianity is not any more open-minded than the court of reason.