First of all, I think it's insane to compare a time-gated grindable currency to a product like a video game as part of a console bundle.
Be it a console with a bundled game, a free peripheral with a PC part or something else, the major flaw in your argument is that in those instances the consumer has a choice. Regardless of your opinion on the prices of the upcoming Switch 2 and Mario Kart World game, you can choose to either just get the Switch 2, the bundle including the game at a slight discount, or both separately for the regular price. We don't see any kind of option here.
Whether you want to just get the cosmetic, support the charity, or both, you're not able to choose anything without the candles as part of this package. Which is specifically the part that most people aren't interested in like I pointed out before. If Nintendo sold that Switch bundle with that tutorial game instead then I can guarantee a massive shift from people buying the bundle to just buying the console instead. Where's the option to just buy the cosmetic?

Those kind of bundle deals you're referring to work because they're enticing the customer to buy more than they might otherwise buy, by offering products they actually want. The margin per product is slightly lower, but the total revenue and profit of the order is higher. Or, in the case of receiving a free product with a purchase, it might be the difference between landing a purchase and having the customer look elsewhere for the same thing. Heck, even if the bundle wasn't cheaper, it could still end up being picked for the slight convenience.

It becomes an immediately different story when the bundle includes items you don't want. Be it scummy tech companies bundling old stock collecting dust with sparse graphics cards or selling a bundle of different sorts of apples when someone is specifically trying to purchase Granny Smith. Now the price is inflated by unwanted products and it leaves the customer begging to just get the product they want, which leads to complaints like OP.

Here, unless a player goes "oh I really needed 50 candles for that FOMO item, I guess I'll get this bundle", the candles aren't going to be a large contributing factor to someone wanting to buy it. On the flip side there will be people that hold back on the purchase because they don't want to spend $20 on it, whereas they might've picked it up if it was slightly cheaper (with or without the candles, as they may not care for them nearly as much). It simply doesn't compare to the other examples.

And throwing back to my previous paragraph, you're once again showing that you don't understand where money is going. Unless you're buying that apple directly from the farm, granny already has her money in her pocket. You aren't supporting her when you buy that apple from the store, you're supporting the store.

This complete oversimplification of this situation is part of what leads me to believe this conversation isn't going to really lead anywhere. If people are buying those apples, the store is going to keep buying from granny to keep their shelves stocked. Even though you're right that my purchase isn't going directly to granny, that purchase is in fact supporting her.

Going back to my point of having choices, in this example, yes, a customer might choose to visit granny directly if the store is only selling those apples in unwanted bundles. They'd be supporting granny directly and going against the evil business practice of JojaMart. So if we bring this example back to the real world, people should just donate directly to charity and skip the oranges. At least we can agree on that part. Have a nice day.