I agree that we shouldn't worship reason or science in a scientistic manner. I criticize secular normality almost as much as I criticize literalistic, exoteric religion. Indeed, I have two articles coming out within a couple weeks that might be up your alley: "Mass Hallucination and The Dream of Waking Life," and "Anxiety and the Condemnation of Grotesque Societies." The second one asks whether debilitating anxiety about self-destructive Western society is really mentally disordered.

I agree also that comedy can be useful for philosophical purposes. I like to say that comic relief (generated in part by the human herd's follies) is needed to counterbalance the jadedness that comes with the territory of existential authenticity.

The question is whether the thesis that there are literally alien overlords is itself meant in earnest. More generally, the question is whether the hyperskeptic even knows any longer what it could mean to commit straightforwardly to the probable truth of a proposition. We're dealing here with massive irony, decadence, and incredulity towards all metanarratives. I criticize many aspects of secularism, but not to the point of getting lost in complete cynicism and relativism.

There's also a difference between conspiratorial, paranoid thinking which weaves together loose associations between data points to fit a preconceived, faith-based, farfetched scenario, and a rational assessment of probabilities. If you're saying reason itself is part of the alien scheme, we're dealing with a more radical, Zen or Gnostic mystical worldview.

If we can't trust reason to clarify the world for us, despite the Luciferian downside of technoscientific enterprises, hope is likely lost for our kind. Postmodern, paranormal, paranoid flailing alone won't save us; on the contrary, in hindsight that flailing may look like the decadence of an infantile population of hubristic, reality-divorced consumers.