I think the most freeing aspect of writing is that, unlike spoken conversations, I am confident in knowing that nobody has ever had my writing pushed on them against their will.

The mechanism of how things work is my version of the ultimate truth of the universe.
That was not the sentence I intended to write at this time and it derails us somewhat but I'm going to roll with it as it is essentially true.
When people ask "why" something happened, they very frequently don't mean 'for what reason...', they mean 'by what mechanism...'?
This is an important distinction that is not touched upon nearly often enough. Middle school classes on journalism and writing in general always highlight the importance of 'who what when where why and how' and then go on to emphasize the superiority of WHY above all others.
Nonsense. Why is subjective. How is not. Mostly.
This is why the platitude "things happen for a reason" is utterly devoid of significance. It is tautological, it is self evident. The reason things happen is that other things have happened, since the beginning of things happening. That's the definition of causality, is "stuff makes stuff happen and happens because of other stuff", and it's impossible to have any sort of conversation about the subject without rapidly disappearing up your own asshole.
Why is mostly an unanswerable question. You can answer it however suits you.
How, on the other hand, is the ultimate question. It's typically got one answer, which is the end all be all answer, since reality has a sort of singular aspect to it. There's usually only one way any one thing 'is', and that's an existing point of....existence itself that can be measured and, if not understood, at least perceived and acknowledged by us.

It exists outside of us, essentially.  All answers to "Why" comes from within, and therefore have less meaning slash empirical value than "How" answers, since those are not connected to our ability to perceive them.
This strikes me as a statement that someone like the Dalai Lama would probably be dissatisfied with, and I feel a little bad for disappointing him.
What I mean is, human consciousness (another subject in which one is utterly unable to discuss without getting just deep up your own butthole, and if you see anyone try to do so without freely admitting this then your date is going to go very poorly indeed) is impermanent and not omniscient. To the best of our knowledge. I guess this is sort of a hot button issue, actually. Maybe later on it changes and our entire perception of things is an early larval stage to something bigger (oh no it's beginning I can feel the inexorable pull of my own ass) but as it stands right now, humanity is not one with the cosmos.
That is to say, my self that exists is only a very small, closed system in a greater part of existence, yeah? If my ice cream cone falls and I am sad, that is specific to my loop. The sadness I feel, the emotions and perceptions of the event, are individual and constructed by and therefore only have 'meaning' within my own system.
Yet the ice cream falls, regardless. The ice cream exists, regardless. The ice cream has meaning only to a small subset of the universe (see: re: me), but the ice cream has mechanism to the entire universe.

This is about as profound an idea as I am capable of thinking. If I had to start a religion, if I had to boil down my personal spiritual beliefs down to a single concept, which is as impossible as it is frequently attempted by those who are stoned out of their gourds, it would be that statement.
Some things exist in a larger system than others.
A tremendous amount of things (literally every aspect of human consciousness, for an appetizer) exist entirely within our own brainspaces, by definition. Because of this, they are wildly disputable and insanely complicated and impossible to talk about using concrete terms.
This is known as 'philosophy' and it is the domain of those who crawl up their own asses willingly, for personal fulfillment or as a profession.
An even more tremendous amount of things (literally everything else in the universe, for the main course) exist whether we do or not. They are not dependent on us being, to be. They are not our subroutines. They are the phenomena of the universe, and they are simultaneously the simplest and the most complicated things we can possibly hope to interact with/begin to understand/investigate in the universe.

So much of the human condition is wondering, searching for 'something more', 'something out there', searching for reason for our existence, searching for answers of what lies beyond the boundaries of our existence.
What is more concrete and comforting than the realization that there are things that are apart from us, that exist independently of our existence and will continue to do so regardless of anything we could possibly conceivably do!
Dissect the tenants of religion. What purer ideal is there? What highest truth, what more meaningful pursuit is there, than the mechanism of how things Thing at all?

This is what keeps me up at night. The idea that there is a fundamental how of things. I've never understood 'why' as a troubling question compared to 'how' when it comes to really sleepless gnawing issues.
Listen: "Why does a rock exist?" It's meaningless! It doesn't carry any intrinsic meaning! Could people write dissertations on it anyway? Could people ascribe meaning to it? Of course! That's what being human is!
But "How does a rock exist?" has an answer regardless of whether we ask it or not.

That's the root. One has an answer that we have to make up, and one has an answer we have to find. It's there already. It exists. It will wait.