I extremely agree what you are arguing on use light as a material in your blog. I do believe that light can be an architecture vocabulary, which can help interpret and understand architecture in a meaningful way. Even more, light can also be used as a symbol of nature or gods in some cultures. However, on the topic of materials, light, especially natural light deserves a profound interpretation or treatment.
As you mentioned in your blog, giving the scientific meaning of light reflects that we understand light in a way of analyzing rather than symbolizing. This reminds me that most people and even designers themselves they read natural light in an aesthetic way; a philosophical explanation is always involved. For an instance, the Pantheon in Rome has a special expression and respects for the natural light as one of the greatest architecture. On the top of the dome, there is an opening for light and weather, which is named oculus. Oculus is a motif found in western European prehistoric art. Importantly, it represents the watchful gaze of a god or goddess through introducing the natural light inside the space. This way of using light is not treating it as a material, but respecting and symbolizing its role in human cultures with its natural effects, such as glazing and heating. What I am trying to say is that light should be used more in giving and creating a cultural and social value than changing or manipulating its virtues by other human-made structures.
Despite modern design allows us easily create a variety of visual effects by light, we shall never forget seeing the original role of light played in human cultures. Using light as a material may become a new methodology in whatever technology or architecture design, understanding what significance natural light can do to human aesthetic value is the key to a better design.