My point is, it's a bogus distinction and a gimmick. Why do you think so?
Because Orthodoxy is a religion. Those who say, "Orthodoxy is not a religion" will usually define "religion" in a way that it is not defined in common discourse. They say "Orthodoxy is not a religion" to grab your attention, but when they finally explain themselves, they've really just shuffled some definitions around and are not saying anything new. Hence it's a gimmick.
Like I said, Fr. John is trying to couch Orthodox spirituality in terms of modern medicine and presenting it as some kind of science for properly aligning the heart and the brain, getting the proper flow of blood and spinal fluid, etc. He is appealing to materialism and scientism.
He says: We call religion a neurobiological sickness since it stems from a short-circuit between the nervous system centered in the heart, which circulates the spinal fluid, and the blood system centered in the heart which pumps blood throughout the body, including the nervous system. The cure of this sickness of religion is accomplished by repairing said short-circuit between the two hearts which pump blood and spinal fluid which allows them to function normally. In this normal state the various fantasies, religious and otherwise, produced by said short-circuit between the brain and the heart disappear and with them one's fantasies also disappear, including that of religion. The Bible calls this neurological energy the spirit of man which the Fathers came to call the noetic energy.
First of all, who is "we" in the first sentence? Where in any of the fathers do we find this peculiar idea of "religion" and Orthodoxy curing a "short-circuit" between the nervous system and the circulatory system?
Fr. John's approach in making a spiritual discipline out to be an empiricist medical science is disturbingly reminiscent of similar efforts by various new age gurus.