I'm not saying Peterson doesn't help anyone or even that he intends to be condescending. It's possible he doesn't know himself perfectly. But his handling of this question about his religious status is indeed condescending and revealing.

Why, for example, is it more "profound and intensely personal" for Peterson than for the millions of theists and atheists who have no problem coming clean about their religious status?

Take me, for example. I understand the philosophical complexities about theism and atheism, and the danger of oversimplifying. I say, for example, that I dismiss exoteric religion, but that esoteric religion (or the philosopher's God) is another ball game. I add pantheism into the mix too. And I lay out the nuances of my position in hundreds of articles. Presumably, Peterson does the same with his lectures. But you don't see me crying when someone asks if I'm an atheist. I've laid it all out there in my writings, so I'm not threatened if I have to oversimplify a little in answering a commenter's question.

Peterson is threatened because he seems to be hiding something. His evolutionary perspective is at war with his Jungian one, and he can't decide which is superior. Moreover, he prefers not to admit that he's been unable to combine them well. That might be his unconscious self-doubt, which embarrasses him. And the fact that so many people now have their eyes on him likely isn't helping with his anxiety.