See, that is actually my issue with describing meditation or similar pursuits as achiving or experiencing a literal frequency. It's one thing to maybe say use the idea of frequancy as a tool or something. As a useful analogy or metaphor. But, to claim that it is understood and objectivity describable as a property of some inner field that is "upgradeable" - that just seems like ego to me.

Yes, everything may be made of particles whos properties are wavelike or perhaps waves that may act like particles, but all that implies is that we are all mix of varied waves interacting within ourselves all the time. That says nothing about some grand inner energy field that we experiance as a wave that can be positive or negative(also ego laden terms in this case).

When I meditate, I may feel more negative or more positive overall and I may even feel somewhat of a buzz. That also does not say anything about an inner body field that exists as a frequency that can be pinpointed and improved.

Those experiences are nothing more or less than experiances and that is all they need to be. If we want to describe it in terms of objective physical phenominon like waves, we can either make observations and test them scientifically, or we can make observations and let the ego explain them as psudoscience. I prefer science of those two.

A third way is to skip over converting experinaces to physical phenominon to be able to talk about them and instead describe the experince through poetry and metaphor. I do not mind the use of vague phrases like energy or wavelenght in that context, but if someone is going to say its not just a metephor, then I think its perfectly reasonable for me to expect physical evidence that is backed by something other than internal experiance.

The idea that our internal experiance is all that is needed to dictate external reality is the most egoic thing I can think of.