More On The Wikipedia Article on The Word "Numinous"

From that wikipedia article I quoted in my last post:

"The idea is not necessarily a religious one: noted atheists Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett, Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris have discussed the importance of separating the numinous from the religious. For example, when one experiences awe and fascination with natural phenomenon such as majestic landscapes and deep appreciation of fellow human creations such as art and engineering marvels. At times like these a feeling of the numinous can overwhelm the mind and body, yet in no way is this interpreted to be supernatural or of divine origin. The very fact that one feels inspired by such encounters extends the depth of feeling of the numinous and makes accessible a real sense of humane solidarity with ourselves and with our natural world. The unnecessary introduction of the supernatural only serves to remove this wonderment to some abstract realm and thus in fact cheapens the experience.^[2]"

But the question is whether our experience of the numinous is really justified. Is it just a flight of fancy? If so, why should one care? If, on the other hand, it is a feeling that is grounded in reality as it actually is, then that brings up some interesting questions. For that means our experience of value is grounded in something outside ourselves, that our values in some sense adhere in the universe. But what could that possibly mean if the universe is in fact indifferent to us? Further, what happens when I experience the numinous in some vision or mystical experience? What happens when I meditate and try to give myself completely over to the experience of the numinous and find that it leads to greater and stranger experiences, of a type that imply theism or at least something like it? At that point am I supposed to just abandon the quest? Why would I do that?