It sounds immensely like you belief you hit an existence controlled or observed by an entity other than known ones.
It sounds to me like the GP hit upon a mode of perception of their own internal processes, by their own mind, and that no "outside" observer was invoked in these perceptions.
It sounds to me like a thought arose that contained an interesting question and jolted them from that mode of perception. But nothing in the GP's post sounds to me like it confirmed or stated any belief in kind of entity,
So the parent's message, quoted above, sounds to me *almost entirely* a statement about the author's own beliefs, masqueraded as a statement about someone else's. I.e. a projection, seeing things in the GP's post which aren't there.
With regard to saying anything about "known entities" as though those are factual things. It is debatable whether one's mind, one's internal process, and consciousness and sub-consciousness, are "known entities" or simply fantasy constructions or theories. I've met people I respect who hold that those ideas are dubious and should not be taken too seriously when making important decisions. Which leaves me wondering, what is meant by "known entities"?
Out of the two messages, the parent and the GP, the parent message strikes me as the more religious and dogmatic. This is because the GP showed that they were exploring a question about what is known to them personally by the best available empirical means, while the parent's message contains only statements about their own beliefs (as I see it, masqueraded via projection) without any empiricism indicated.