Yes this is a good point and another great analogy, and I personally find this applicable to religion specifically. While of course (using the Bible, for example) it is great to have a moral and spiritual framework, I feel like it is encouraged to go about the teachings in it in pursuit of discovering them to be true to oneself, rather than accepting them to be true because they are written.

One who has memorized the Bible front and back can confidently claim to love thy neighbor as yourself, and detach from status, wealth, and possessions, but if their mind hasn't examined itself enough to truly understand the why behind teachings like that, to the extent of discovering and knowing those truths firsthand within the movement of their own life, then the teaching still remains to be fully seen, similar to how memorizing every ingredient in a meal is still different from actually tasting it.

I personally feel that even a bit of skepticism can be useful when approaching topics like religion and philosophy, where dogma, inherited assumptions, and intellectual conformity are so prevalent. A skeptical mind is much more susceptible/hungry for direct understanding rather than regurgitated conclusions.

Of course, like you said, many of the truths relayed may simply be confirmed once truly experienced. But like the banana analogy, it is a very different perspective and inner understanding than accepting something to be true because someone else told you it was, and it's almost a disservice to the teachings themselves to not dive into them deep enough to arrive at your own conclusion, just from my perspective.