The way scholarship is supposed to work is not by suggesting just any old explanation that you want as long as it fits. You really need to have evidence for that sort of thing. Do we have any evidence that the author of Revelation was on drugs? No.
Then is it equally ridiculous to posit what said person might eat or drink? If I said an Egyptian peasant, whom I know nothing about other than the fact that he is a peasant, had a lot of mead during his life, I am saying this using evidence and scholarly research.
Meanwhile, there's a bevy of evidence supporting the fact that psychedelic drug use was somewhat common in ancient times, especially for mystics, shamans, and religious persons.
Plus, there's a difference between saying that the author of the Bible is 100% for sure talking about a drug trip, and saying that there's a fairly good chance psychedelic drug use was involved in the experiences leading up to the Bible, and other religious texts. It's not as if this is just a statement made out of thin air, or pulled out of someones ass. It's an inference based upon two things: the existence and use of psychedelics, and the effects of psychedelics. It's enough evidence to make it a possibility