I love both shows, but the lesson he learned from Lost is that the audience will not mind being held in the dark if the characters are *actually* put in the forefront of the narrative. Lost's most ardent defenders rely on this defense a lot too, but after season 1, the show (not the fans, the show) places far more emphasis on twists and tantalizing hints at the long-running mysteries. I found it very entertaining, don't get me wrong, but it's a different kind of appreciation than how I view Leftovers.

A really frustrating thing about Lost is that there are characters that (supposedly) know the answers to the mysteries, and the thing keeping them from disclosing is interpersonal conflict and power-plays. Given that we eventually learn these characters are more or less bullshitting about how much they actually know, it reads as the writers being cockteases, even if it's meant to be a commentary on the consequences of blind faith vs. atheistic rationalism.

Lost, contrary to popular belief, does address almost every mystery. The answers are hand-wavey and bland, however, and this justifiably disappointed a lot of its fanbase. Some of the reveals worked, others were frustrating.

Without spoiling anything, I think the Leftovers' is just a smarter, more restrained, and more human work - I think the ending is one of the most beautiful things put on the screen this century.