No, I have a strong belief that reality has an objective definition, and that empirical evidence shows what that definition is. Because, though this may come as a surprise to you, empirical evidence is the very definition of looking at what the universe does to figure out what the universe does.

"Much of the value of psychedelics is in unseating us from assuming that what we have always thought was real necessarily is. In most cases it mostly is not. Yes, rocks are hard, and fog is soft, but the ways the world works are very different from what we picked up as children. It is extremely rare for people to have rethought everything in light of later experience, so most cling to falsehoods they have not examined."

This is... well, a vast generalization. While it's true there are some things that turn out to be not quite as we thought, the way to discover those inaccuracies is through empirical evidence. Thinking that hallucinogenics are the way to discover what is not true and what is true is basically saying "my perceptions are more real than everything around me is, and if I just think about things in the right way, I will discover the truth, even if it contradicts the evidence".

You don't find truth by distorting your perceptions and then thinking hard about what you've perceived; you find it by looking at the world outside your own brain and listening to what that world shows you through empirical measurements.

The scientific method is designed specifically to counteract the many ways in which our perceptions already fool us, and it has worked exceptionally well at discovering the truths of the universe (the computer you're using right now is one tiny bit of proof of that). Relying on our perceptions is already problematic, but distorting those perceptions and then relying on them as a source of truth? That's just hubris.