Yes, we are completely talking past each other. In my framing "harmful" relates to number and intensity of suffering-moments, not reproductive success. I'm still kind of boggling that you think that's relevant.
You are correct to look to religion for archetypal information hazards; certain conceptions of sin, for example. Unlike Omega, sin cares about your decision theory; it applies to you if and only if you know it does, and the news is always bad. It's a cognitive event horizon. The Motif of Harmful Sensation is completely damn irrelevant. Information hazards don't make you go bleeble-bleeble-bleeble, they make you lie awake at night.

To be honest, I wasn't making sufficient effort to engage with you; I was venting irritation with this whole subthread, which largely consists of the emotionally privileged giving each other high-fives for getting lucky with their absurdity heuristic. You briefly became the embodiment of my irritation by describing the fear of hell as "mildly harmful", which it sort of isn't when you measure harm in actual caused fear. Some thoughts are black, and go nowhere, and can teach nothing, and any energy used to think them pours out of the universe and is gone. But I'm tapping out before I make a fool of myself further.