It seems you mean to go beyond the mystique of Buddhism, which is fine. Yet you lean heavily on the distinction between theory and practice. Buddhist practice isn't the only dissolver of delusions. Philosophy and science are heavy-hitters too. So it seems to me a stretch to suggest that I know nothing about seeing through delusions. Have you seen the extent of my writings? Have you seen how many bubbles I've burst?

What you're entitled to say is that I have no extensive experience of Buddhist practice. But even there, your point can be challenged. You're short-changing the imagination. We can understand much without directly experiencing it.

What remain, according to the Mary's knowledge argument in the philosophy of mind, are qualia. We can understand much about baseball by studying the sport, going to a game, and using our imagination. But we wouldn't know what it's like to hit a professionally thrown fastball unless we've done so. (I went to one of those robotic pitchers that pitched a fastball and it flew right by me. You have only nanoseconds to see where the ball's going, so indeed hitting them does seem more like luck than skill.)

Even if we remain in the dark about certain qualia unless we've had the right experiences, there's still a lot we can say about the experience (unless we're saying it's ineffably mystical). There are a lot of words in English.