I have a problem with the use of word “real” here. Academically it might be correct, and it might come across as pretentious from me to ask an academic not to speak in academical correctness: “Real-ity” might refer equally to existence (from latin ‘existere’, to appear, come into being) and to the “substance” of things, the “essential nature” underlying phenomena. Physicists would probably call that information, still comfortably within the boundaries of Materialism, which I think JP never steps out of. Yet the popular understanding of word “real-ity” might let it glide too easily into magical thinking and dualism. He later in that video replaces “more real” with “more important”, which is more adequate IMO.