“meaningful” is the key. That is, who judges the meaningfulness?
From an outside perspective, it may appear meaningless. From an internal perspective, it may pervade all meaning.
For example: I am talking (like 5 minutes ago) with someone who turns out is semi-secretly an Eastern Orthodox priest in a non-religious group I’m in who is on on mission in Ecuador and translating from Serbian to Spanish and who is affiliated with monastery that I was once familiar with long ago.
So, I’ve been bringing up panentheism, various ways it ties into other religions and also showing some “back in the day” materials I had hanging around my bookshelf (from 1994-1999 when I was into it).
So, theological concepts such as essence vs energies, God-as-pervasive ‘something’ that both comes from and through matter and also from some kind of outside is shared familiar territories as it were.
Now I don’t know what he actually believes nor does he know what I actually believe beyond what we say to each other.
However, by sharing a common ontology, we’re communicating.
Are we communicating meaningfully? Yes.
Are we communicating meaningful about reality? Well, what are we referring to?
We’re not denying reality as it is understood by materialism.
We are talking “about” concepts similar to fields in physics or mathematics.
People who act “as if” this ever-present field is a reality modify their behaviors in accordance, which then acts upon the world in a meaningful way.
What if it’s a nominal distinction?
Alfred North Whitehead’s Process Philosophy directly led to Process Theology, which is another compatible notion of panentheism.
It may be nothing more than communicating with a “meme” that others call “God” – a nominal difference.
I’m not saying “I affirm this is what I believe” because I don’t know if it is or not. But communicating with complex constructs is something humans do frequently. As to whether they map in any meaningful way to reality may be a matter of pragmatism.