Such people may have achieved some sort of genuine stream entry at some point, and then slipped back/regressed into very ego-centered patterns of thinking. Regardless, it calls their advice into question. I'm not surprised that some folks are dissuaded - and I'd caution people against doing "just a little bit" anyway, if they're aiming at anything like actual stream entry/enlightenment. Vipassana meditation demands a serious commitment; the casual, halfway-committed version of good practice is perhaps best represented by western Stoicism, or by common practices (not aiming solely at enlightenment) in e.g. Hinduist-inspired religions.

Everything Shakyamuni has ever said is just a "finger pointed to the moon". It is only known through the memory and writings of other people, so it's sensible to take that statement — and pretty much everything attributed to him — with a grain of salt.

Having had these experiences, the god I saw and became one with was a being with a childlike sense of wonder at the universe it had accidentally created.

More of a "whoops, woah cool" than a "let there be light"

Very much unlike of the Christian conception of God.

I'm not describing this well, because I can't describe it well. But I can't imagine anyone experiencing something similar would be a jerk about it. See the universe unfiltered though the mind's perception and it just...is. Timeless and meaningless.

Consciousness and ego create their own meaning.

The point ought to be that there's nothing overly special about "being the divine" - after all, God is everywhere. In eastern tradition, this would be called "having the Buddha-nature", or the underlying potential for spiritual enlightenment. It doesn't even mean that you have attained more power over the material world (the sort of power you might naïvely ascribe to a "God"), albeit practitioners of spiritual/ascetic magick would say that there's a very real path to explore in that whole expectation.

Said simply, it's not.