For over a hundred years, the scientific gatekeepers not only declared their premise of the so-called "speed" of light as a universal law, but went even further to declare that its seemingly impressive "speed" was at once its minimum and maximum limit. Theorizing is one thing, but declaring immutable laws, based upon sensed speculation is quite another.
However, even the most audacious, speculative and erroneous claims, in and of themselves, are actually quite inconsequential. The problem is its insidious infrastructure growing like roots and tentacles through the very perceptual fabric of life. Therefore, such theories are not defended for their own sake, but for an entire system held together by its implied assumptions.
Thus, corrections to any new developments that prove such ubiquitous theories to be flawed are first kept under wraps, and when enough inside information "leaks" out, it is quietly acknowledge as a mere footnote in the fringes of theoretical research. So it went for Einstein's relativity which threatened the veracity of the so-called law restricting the speed of light. The other similar theory, bound for extinction was that light only "travels" in a straight line and so on and so forth.
One by one, each premise is lain to waste by succeeding minds so that, lo and behold, light can now "travel" faster or slower than its stated limits and can also "bend" around other objects of mass (which are also made of light). However, all of these presumptions about light and its ever changing properties begs the question that was never properly addressed in the first place: What exactly is light? The answers typically lead one in circles; it is a particle -- no its a wave; well its made of photons; it is part of an electromagnetic phenomenon, and so on.
Yet, the so called ancient texts all speak of light in terms that science is only now reinventing in its own terms. In the ancient world, light was a mutable property of mind and its behavior just as varied as the entities who perceive its effects. Clearly, it is the effects of light that we perceive, not light itself. It is no different than perceiving colors, which are determined by the type of receptors in the sensory apparatus used by a given specie.
So a useful understanding of light can never be achieved as long as the futile attempt is made to objectify it as an independent phenomenon. If any distinction is made, it can only reference light as a perceived effect of mind, not as an object unto itself. Clearly, the properties of light are, indeed, ubiquitous, as they are found in every level, from the subatomic to the galactic scales of perception.
Thus, it is important to refrain from massive assumptions based upon the effects of light; for while an effect can certainly affect other levels and scales of reality, an effect can never be the Cause of anything in a relative, polarized universe...