Now you call "religious belief" (see your comment there) a "fantasy". I have no grounds for believing in, or ruling out, the occurrence of reincarnation, but at least I am mindful enough not to label it a "fantasy" just for the sake of suppressing (let alone as "moderator") someone's post. And clearly you keep failing to distinguish between your roles as user and as moderator. You should not abuse the latter merely to impose your views as user. If a question is not to your liking and you consider it "off-topic", then vote to close it just like the average user would do.

@RyanM "A moderator cannot take non-binding action". Thanks for the explanation. I was unaware of this until now that you mention it. Then, consistent with many answers on SE Meta and even his own answer to Q2, 2nd paragraph, he as mod should take a step back and let the community decide on non-egregious posts like the one at issue, more so when his stated reason for closing it reflects his confusion between "religious belief" and "fantasy" (terms which he is using interchangeably).

@IñakiViggers Ah! I see your issue. You see this post as non-egregious. I think it is egregious.

@DaleM "I think it is egregious".Then you should be able to answer the following like any reasonable moderator would do: What obscenity[-ies] did you find in the OP's question? Where does it promote atrocities such as racism, pedophilia, or hatred of a religion? What in it do you consider spam? And, since you think that his post "is egregious", why do you repeatedly suggest (both here and in that post) that it would fit better in another SE site? You could have made your VTC count as a normal user's vote by waiting for 4 others to VTC, yet you prefer to showcase your misjudgments as mod.

@IñakiViggers do you know what egregious means? “Outstandingly bad” - the question is egregious. It is none of those other things but being outstandingly bad is grounds enough

@IñakiViggers for the note, I am fairly certain the question was flagged at least once.

You are trying to use "egregious" as a catch-all term, but the definition you quote from Google lists synonyms such as "shocking", "appalling", "horrifying", thereby suggesting the connotation and common use of that term. It is hard to believe that his post can shock, appall, or horrify someone even if the latter confuses the notions "religious belief" and "fantasy". Hyperbole certainly entails quite a bit of fantasy, yet I doubt you react similarly when you see that fantasy alluded to in legal texts.

@Trish "I am fairly certain the question was flagged at least once". The notification reflects that only DaleM (and no one else) voted to close the post. I have no reasons to doubt that sooner or later enough users might VTC any post, but my point is that DaleM should allow the community to decide it instead of him rushing to suppress content when he is fully aware of the overriding (sometimes disproportionate, as here) effect a mod's VTC has.

@IñakiViggers Flagging is not visible but for staff. Flagging is a tool for any user to draw staff attention to questions that are spam, rude, need extreme improvement, or a custom reason. not everybody who flags also votes to close at the same moment because for example you can't VtC from the mobile app. The question could have been closed not only for being outlandish, but also for lacking even a basic idea how it should work or where it would be located as lacking information.

@Trish This answer nowhere reflects that someone else flagged the question. Nor does DaleM make any mention in that sense in his subsequent attempts to justify his decision. The closest he gets thereto is the argument that "We just don’t all have equally weighted votes" and "a moderator decides to close it. That is the full explanation.".

@Trish Is it prohibited to even mention that someone (without revealing identity[-ies]) else flagged the question?

@IñakiViggers Moderators operate under a rulebook that prohibits them from talking about some things, especially to try to keep personal vendettas away. anyway, have some counterponderings: The question was closed by Dale within about the first hour or two. Would it be suddenly opened, it will be marked as Spam, voted to close and possibly raise a bunch of flags requesting to burninate the question for extremely bad content and it would be locked again before 24 hours passed.

@Trish The credible prohibition to talk "about some things" does not answer my question of whether flagging is altogether a taboo among mods, so I take it as a no. Your latter hypotheses don't seem very realistic. No reasonable person would flag that post as spam or "extremely bad content". That post with its topic of reincarnation is not incendiary at all, nor does the OP try to persuade us about reincarnation or religion whatsoever. You yourself posted the first comment therein, and in no way does your comment reflect a perception of egregiousness.

@IñakiViggers my first comment was a matter of fact statement. It does not carry how I feel about the topic. Also, thank you for the insult, here's the other side of my face. Bad is also a synonym for low quality

@Trish What insult? I honestly see none. Let us continue this discussion in chat.

@IñakiViggers Denied.