Just because the Buddha didn't call something by a name we now associate with something, doesn't mean he didn'e teach something similare, or would agree to its use even if only in part.
I am not familiar with some of the terms you use, but it is well worth remembering that the buddha didn't say something was useless if it bore results in the right direction, although he may well of adapted it to be more in line with the Dhamma.
Take Yoga for example, the Buddha never mentions such practices, but he does talk about the benefit of walking meditation, to practice in all postures, and activities, he may of done away with some of the philosophy, but kept the physical side? same with other practices, the Buddha never explicitly taught prayer, but it has been used by some in a very positive way, and could be seen in the karaniya metta sutta origin story, same as Lecio Divina not taught but a very useful tool.
The Buddha encouraged us to know for ourselves if something is useful or not, leading to skillfulness or not, so it is well worth remembering that just because it isn't explicitly found in the texts doesn't mean it isn't a useful tool, or that it can be useful.
just to hammer home the point, look at Scientology and their attitude to psychology/psychiatry to them these are useless things and they use the negative things it has been used as proof, yet these have been used in both positive and negative ways, same as many medical fields are we to throw these out based only on one use? is the baby going out with the bath water?
food for thought at least, if not entirely useful.
He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.