There are two fundamental types of inspiration, or affective energy. They're not types, actually, but rather sources: outside and inside. The outside sources include the lures of social status, wealth, power, sex, consumption generally. These are HYPERBOREAN OBJECTS.
One's own imagination, however, can also be a source of the same energy. This is called a TRANSCENDENTAL OBJECT. It requires work - the exercise of a sort of psychic muscle, to be able to see this object clearly in the mind's eye. Constellations of religious symbols can do this - e.g. the chakras - and so can poetry, and so can certain types of conduct - especially selflessness and repentance.
There is something good, generative, positive in focussing one's efforts on the latter. It is also powerful. It leads to success, more often than not, although not all outside circumstances are amenable to it. My question is, I guess, what is going on here?
If there is a God, this is where God lives. A theist, especially a practitioner of an existing religion, will generally believe that the non-religious version of the TRANSCENDENTAL OBJECT is incomplete, or even a sort of temptation. (There is a term, the "belt of lies", for spiritual ideas that are not rooted in God but nevertheless inspire. "Egregores"). The claim would be something like this: sure, one can be inspired, proactive and successful if one follows one's heart and builds an empire or a successful career or whatever it is - but one will also do great damage. There is no moral compass built into the TRANSCENDENTAL OBJECT. I simply need to mention the name Donald Trump to illustrate this point. People around him love him, he generates all this wealth etc, but, a little further out, he's ultimately an extremely destructive force.
Faith and hope in this object, then, needs to be combined with service, renunciation and humility. Once one has attained spiritual power, one has to renounce it. This is the only truly transcendental form of conduct - the only way it will be eternal, rather than leading to ruin.
I think there is something to this view. Nevertheless, religion has to be rejected. There is no religious dogma that is not capable of becoming a basis for violence. Symbols by their nature have to transform and be transformed. Only art, at this stage in history, can be a true site of contact with divine forces. Perhaps, though, art does then have a burden to encourage renunciation, humility and service, rather than mere expression or experimentation.