The idea of the "infinite light" does not get into philosophy much or even religion. The reason is that it is not grasped, but given. And even when it is given, it is only one area of value. This you can see in the diagram of Kelley Ross about the modes of necessity on the z axis and the mode of the transcendent in  the x direction. [https://www.friesian.com/system.htm]

So even if one merits to have some flow of the infinite light, that does not mean he or she has any connection with the other  areas of value. They might not have any particular insight in anything or even in spiritual values.

And the problem with each area of value is there is an equal and opposite area of negative value that mimics the authentic area of value. [The Dark Side. The Sitra Achra.] (That is the reason the religious world is so messed up.)

[This is based on Kant's dinge an sich--the areas where reason does not enter. And Leonard Nelson's particular approach which was adopted from Fries with some modifications.]

[Though the Kelley Ross, Leonard Nelson  approach makes the most sense to me I tend to see a lot of good points in Hegel also.]

[This approach makes sense to me because Hegel sees everything as leading to God as the absolute idea through reason. That would be so if the only emanation of God was logos. But with the Kelley Ross, there is a whole area of transcendental which  can not be grasped by reason. ]