Meaning of a sentence in the book I'm reading :- How To Change Your Mind by Michael Pollan [closed]

I came across a sentence in this book that I'm not able to wrap my mind around. Here, it is:

Science has little interest in, and tolerance for, the testimony of the individual; in this it is, curiously, much like an organized religion, which has a big problem crediting direct revelation too.

The author is trying to draw a parallel between organized religion and science regarding what I assume is their intolerance for the testimony of the individual. But I don't understand what his point is.

Isn't the point of most religion to take individual testimonies to be the only truth and believe in them blindly? Maybe, the author is talking strictly from the Judeo-Christian perspective which I'm not pretty familiar with. Hence, not able to comprehend this.

Anyway, any insight into what anyone can understand from this will be a great help.

The intended parallel is that in both cases, any individual's assertions carry little weight with the establishment.

In the case of science, what matters is repeatability. If one person says something works, that isn't persuasive. But if many people independently say the same thing, it becomes more credible to the establishment.

The wording of the religion case is more convoluted.

English usage of "direct revelation" tends to imply that the revelation is genuine. However, the quote's usage isn't about "direct revelation" in this sense. It is referring to claims of direct revelation. It uses "crediting" in the following sense:

credit verb 3 [British] Believe (something surprising or unlikely) ‘you would hardly credit it—but it was true’ - Lexico

The situation the quote alludes to is that of someone claiming direct revelation. It would be understandable for organised religion to require more proof than just that person's assertion. The parallel drawn is that science also requires more proof than just one individual's assertion.