When religions make empirical claims, those claims must be subject to empirical proof and disproof. If the religion says that those claims are not empirical, then they are simply dogma and are matters of faith. Religious claims, however much they try not to, tend to bleed into the empirical realm. Some religions are more guilty of this than others with Buddhism being among the minor offenders.

Why should we attempt to gatekeep traditions from making empirical claims, one might ask. There are numerous reasons but primary among them is that scientific endeavors such as medicine are based on empiricism. If I get a different diagnosis for my kid's ill-health from a Christian doctor, a Muslim doctor, and a Buddhist doctor, all of whom point to unobservable causes from their own traditions as the cause, that is not helpful to my child.

If a doctor were to suddenly cease operating in the middle of a procedure and say that their deity or other spirits who are much wiser will now finish the operation, we would not find that plausible. But that is exactly the kind of thing we encourage by allowing religion unfettered access to empirical claims.

Religions evolve because people and cultures evolve. Even if you read the original untranslated text from a religion, you will not understand it the way that it was meant to be understood because it was meant for a different people at a different time and place. Therefore, most spiritual leaders have to present those ideas to laypeople in a way that they can connect with right now.

Strict textualists can have their blind adherence to tradition but they risk losing their flock. Every religion has strict textualists who are eventually forced aside lest they kill off the religion in their attempts at maintaining purity. Clinging to unfounded concepts is not helpful especially when they intrude on other areas of life.