In the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, among the oldest Upanishads, the sage Yajnavalkya answers what is Brahman with sa esa neti nety atma: this Self is not-this, not-this, ungraspable, for it is not grasped. The method negates the gross and the subtle, both categories of apparent existence, leaving what cannot be negated: the witnessing awareness itself. Shankara systematized it as adhyaropa-apavada, provisional attribution, then removal, and insisted the negation's purpose is identity, not emptiness: Brahman is self-evident, only obscured.
The standard misreading: neti neti as nihilism, truth is nothing. The tradition's correction is built into the text: after the not-this comes iti, this; the negations are a sieve that removes the borrowed and time-bound so the self-luminous remains. Modern therapy stumbled into the same move: you are not your thoughts, defusion as clinical neti neti, twenty-five centuries late and billable.
The claim: neti neti is methodologically bulletproof because it asserts nothing, every debunking becomes another neti, and a doctrine that feeds on refutation cannot lose; it can only be abandoned. Verdict: true as logic, and it is the same structural property this archive flags in conspiracy theory, unfalsifiability, here wearing saffron. The difference the texts insist on: neti neti ends in a positive witness, not a bunker. But unfalsifiable is unfalsifiable, whatever the robes.
If you negate everything you can point at, what is left pointing?