About the authencity of modern meditation methods

I've been reading a few sources, books, essays and teachings that discuss the idea that the current orthodoxy of Theravada and its modern meditation methods show great differences with what the suttas tell us (especially the ones characterized as being part of the early doctrinal strata) about meditation, jhana and its importance in the buddhist soteriology (i.e. the path towards "salvation" from dukkha and the cycle of rebirth). For instance, some investigations conclude that methods such as *Vipassana* are not "methods" in the suttas, but qualities to be developed (along with *samatha*) with the practice of Jhana. And so, all the foundations of modern *vipassana* meditation would come from later sources, and not from the Buddha himself. The same could be said about concepts such as *kasina*, *access concentration*, *nimitta* (as lights seen during meditation), etc. **How well accepted is this idea between bhikkhu/nis, scholars, and lay practitioners? And what consequences does this have for our practice? Should we look for methods of meditation that could go back to the ones described in the suttas, putting aside other sources, such as Abhidhamma or Visuddhimagga?** Just to be clear, I'm not necessarily saying that modern methods are wrong or that they contradict the path laid by the Buddha. I'm just asking if those methods are recognized as not authentic (if we define "authenticity" as the quality of something conforming in form and content with what the Buddha supposedly taught, if we have any way of knowing that with more or less degree of certainty), although useful, inside buddhist circles in general.