Thanks! I spoke with Jay (Sanguinetti) at a conference earlier this year, and I really like what he's doing. I think he's perhaps leaning a little too hard on the assumption of functional localization, but the idea of using a well-characterized pathological state (auto-activation deficit) as a therapeutic target in order to give people a taste of 'what it would feel like to not have my brain constantly chattering at me?' is really clever. This may or may not turn out to be a widely effective and scalable intervention, but there's a prima facie story where it works out. Frankly we'd love to work with him (and Shinzen).
I'm less familiar with the second intervention, but my impression is it tells less of a clear, gears-level account of how it might work. But I'm open to anything that gets interesting and repeatable results; sometimes it's a matter of finding what works and reverse-engineering the theory.
Generally I think this field is mostly held back by a shortage of both theory and methods -- and if we can advance one of these, it'll help advance the other. I.e., better models of what's going on in meditation should help guide us toward interesting intervention points to try with neurotech, and better neurotech stimulation methods should allow us to better evaluate which theories are correct. Really looking forward to where things will be in 5-10 years.
You might also enjoy my deep dive into Connectome-specific harmonic waves: http://opentheory.net/2018/08/a-future-for-neuroscience/