In this example question: Cognitively, where does spiritual feeling come from?, the OP already states his expectation at the end:
I ask this question to understand how people like OSHO and thousands of his variant in India could glue millions of followers without giving any material things.
I think this paragraph alone is enough to negate any opinion that the question is about personal thing. Yet, even when there seems to be a consensus that it's possible to be on-topic*, the feeling that it's off-topic is still there. I wonder why this happens.
I'm going to speculate here and assume that because it doesn't set the expectation of the readers quick and easy, so their first impression that's it's a personal stuff continues on. (I think the personal experience about him practicing Hinduism is just a supporting evidence, not the only evidence.) A related phenomenon is contextual prerequisite for understanding. Together with the cognitive burden that no one has time to distill buried information, the question is left closed.
So it seems that a simple act of putting that paragraph to the top would work. However, when I attempt to do that, it seems the text needs to be rewritten pretty much to feel natural. The edit won't change the intention of the OP, but his wording and structure would be changed noticeably.
And even if we don't need to change the wording much, changing the reader's impression could also mean changing the OP's intention as well. This is not good, and is the reason why edits shouldn't change their intention.
The easiest (and obvious) thing to do is ask them in the comment. But in a general case which they don't reply, how should this situation be handled?