Can I ask you to elaborate on this?
The Enlightenment and the aftermath Reformation pretty much covers the course of the last 5-300 years of history. Isn't it a bit extreme to call it a massive mistake and a net negative on the world?
I mean I can of course gesture to the problems plagueing current state of the modern world, but then again everything manmade eventually succumbs to entropy and collapses.
We do make a distinction between the Reformation and the Enlightenment, but the point is that one precedes the other, and facilitates the other; even informs and cultivates it (albeit, as I said, quite unintentionally: humans rarely make centuries-long master plans, and when they do, they tend to fail dramatically).
The relevant observation, I think, is that we are talking about collapsing order; the decay of cohesion. Roughly speaking, 1500-1800 is the European equivalent of the Sping and Autumn period in China, and 1800-2100 is the equivalent of the Warring States period. One is an escalation of the other. The first sees the erosion of the traditional order, and the second sees the actual break-down.
As something of an aside (or general remark): the above, to me, implies to me that there is something unintentionally deceptive in Spengler's poetically appealing description of Spring, Summer, Autumn and Winter as the phases of a Civilisation's evolution. To him, looking at the West, Spring was about 800-1200 (400 years), Summer was 1200-1800 (600 years), Autumn is 1800-2100 (300 years) and Winter will be 2100-2600 (500 years).
I'd rather say that there is a Formational Period, a Manifest Period, a Division (or Decline) Period, and a Turmoil (or Chaos) Period -- all of which last almost 300 years, with the difference made up by brief transition phases in between. (For instance, the period from the French Revolution to Napoleon's final exile is such a transitional period.)
We now live in the Turmoil/Chaos phase of civilisational history. After the last transition (the 'Caesarist' one), this period gives way to the final period, which might be called the Universalist Period. This corresponds to the Universal Empire, when all (or at least most of) the civilisation is encompassed by one political regime. This period is also longer (approaching 500 years) and can itself be divided into the Consummation Phase (the 'Principate'), a brief 'mid-imperial crisis', and then the Terminal Phase (the 'Dominate').
My terminology isn't perfect, but I'm trying to outline how these periods in a civilisational cycle relate to each other. Bringing that back to the original point: division leads to turmoil, and that ends up prompting a reaction embodied in universalism and a quest for stability. The Universal Empire is made possible because people first suffer through its antithesis.
Practically speaking, this doesn't mean that "the world after modernity" completely rejects the Reformation or even the Enlightenment. But it does thoroughly erase its political excesses and its 'disharmonious' elements. Expect the thinking of moderate Enlightenment philosophers to be re-contextualised as part of the tradition, rather than as a
breach with tradition, whereas the thinking of radicals will be rejected completely. Similarly, don't expect Protestantism to be stamped out, but rather expect religious universalism, wherein the traditionally-minded Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant denominations will (be ecouraged to) find common ground and -- in effect -- "heal the schism".
(As you can imagine, a re-united, universalist Church will have to be very decentralist and tolerant of doctrinal variations, in order to thrive. And it will be! For this exact same reason, but applied to politics, the Universal Empire that encompasses the West will also be very decentralist, and tolerant of any number of 'localisms'.)