I think that it could be interesting, if we bring in the ancient Gnostic naming of different personality types - and modes of human experience - into debate. Those 3 types also denote where one's most basic self identification lay:
For the Hylic, psychical body is all. He can't fathom the possiblility of a pure mind level experience without senses. He lacks tools to experience, or even imagine it, so for him it's just gibbersh, fairy tales or lies. But possibly his experence of the body is very rich.
For the Psychic, the emotion, psychology and subtle sensations are crucial. They often write novels, I guess
And, last but not least, the idealistic - and rare - Pneumatic. For him the mind level of experience. without senses, is both accesible and vivid. The inner, or higher world. Plotinus, William Blake, Svedenborg... those all were the great Pneumatics. For them mind phenomenas were something they could explore, analize, etc.
The official position of Theravada Buddhism on jhana, is pneumatic. Just mind, no senses. I won't repeat what Ceisiwr often explains so well.
. You don't even have to believe him, most of Dhamma teachers say similiar, pneumatic things. But what about other human types? Different kinds of experience?
For a hylic, noticing sensations of a psychical body is more suitable method, than Ajahn Brahm's nimitta meditation. There are people who invested years in Brahm's meditation and saw no nimitta, never. They for sure don't agree with him now
. But it doesn't mean, that Ajahn Brahm talks about non existing things.But if Ajahn Brahm says - my jhana is the only true jhana - then he excludes the hylics. Or people who can't visualize, who identify mainly with their psychical body. And we have a problem.
Perhaps Theravada shall acknowledge, that different people must unevitably experience different jhanas. And not all Buddhists are pneumatics.