I think the way you supplement your ego is to embrace spirituality, therefore negating any harsh truths by placing yourself spiritually above them. My method of dealing with my ego and harsh truths is to frame them through biologically determined metaheuristics instead of real threats to my being, we are both engaging in moral relativism in order to surpass our past traumas, but yours has a spiritual element whereas I pursue rigid materialism because I'm disenchanted and can't imagine a spiritual element in my life. This is where we deviate in our subjective interpretation of events.
My view is that people with different genetic quirks can comprehend different truths and that interpretation of 'truth' is subjective and based on the cognitive architecture of an individual, so there's nothing to say that my realism/materialism is more 'real' than your spirituality, they are a different interpretation of the same natural phenomena using different language. I'm a big fan of Taoism which is all about how the observer and subject can't be separated.
I think this has some consequences for science in general which masquerades as objective truth in the absence of the very concept(!). Really it should be called local engineering principles because science is almost always used teleologically, that is,
to make things, or to
'understand' something which is not objective at all and very homo sapien. Both religion and science condition the soul in different ways; are subjectively human (teleological). Whereas religion engineers self-actualization through spiritual understanding, scientific rationalism engineers it through a projection of empirical certainty.
I do touch upon it in my thread here:
To completely dominate a group, you would tell them lies about their world that you know aren't true. The Industrial revolution heralded a new era of humanity, but sometimes I do wonder if there have been a plethora, or even dozens of such revolutions that may have happened in a dingy DARPA...
elysianfields.se
That really my way of breaking things down into scientific rationalism is flawed, it's an aesthetic strategy that is not necessarily more 'valid' than religion, but people dogmatically believe in the science because it 'bears fruits'. I point out that there is a bit of hypocrisy here because science is just as much cognitively biased to the rigid lawmaking of certain genotypes as religiosity is to other genotypical expressions (namely COMT, VMAT2 or 5-HTTLPR), and therefore the scientific aesthetic represents the reign of ideas from a certain genetic caste rather than the 'truth' it masquerades as. The nomenclature/spread of scientific rationalism has implications for how the doctrine shapes understanding and culture, which is why this argument is so relevant.
TLDR; I think your approach and ideas are just as valid as mine, we are interpreting the same events differently. I do really like spirituality like Taoism, so don't be dissuaded by my walls of text.
