A question that bothers me

Let’s say that after I do a comprehensive study with accurate statistical data, it turns out that rabbis who teach faith through philosophical proofs end up with more students/readers who end up losing their basic faith (for that matter, God + revelation at Sinai) or at the very least stop keeping the Torah and commandments.
At the same time, those rabbis who appear on the Hidabrot channel (as a parable) or rabbis who tell stories of Hasidic practices that never happened or words of acceptance for the people, etc.. they will cause their audience of believers (in the test of results) to observe Torah and commandments. (And it doesn’t matter what you call it – opium for the masses, innocent faith, whatever you want..)
In other words, in terms of “consequential truth,” the two surpassed the first, with them there are more Torah and mitzvot keepers. On the other hand, that truth may stem from naivety/ignorance and is not the desired truth.
I have Professor Yeshayahu Leibowitz in mind. Let’s take as an example his method regarding the belief in the Messiah, that he will not come at all because the whole idea is that he always has to “come.” Such a thing can weaken the masses. Is it even suitable for the masses? I constantly think about the fact that Yeshayahu Leibowitz’s sons have strayed far from Torah and mitzvot because perhaps this method is not right for the public (even if it is right) and perhaps it should be left in the appropriate safe.
Rabbi Micha Goodman, in his story about the teacher Nevokuhim, writes several times that the Maimonides wrote the teacher Nevokuhim in a hidden way so that only a few who are suitable for them will understand – will understand, somewhat reminiscent of Spinoza’s view that he did not want to abolish the simple faith of the masses and believed that it was right for them to believe in their own way.
On the other hand, such a perception feels to me
A. Arrogant (only the educated can understand divine truth)
B. To me, it gives meaning to a flaw in truth when it cannot be “marketed.”
I am of course asking the question on the conceptual level of “consequential truth” versus absolute truth, and also because I feel that His Honor is an idealist in everything related to spreading his perception, by publishing books, responsa, etc., and from his perspective, the general public should analyze and think with philosophical tools.
Hope the dilemma is clear…