This lady's work is canonical of the platitude ignorance is bliss although I feel like she'd have it as ignorance can be bliss. First, however, I'll look at your poem.
It is both brief and simplistic. I'm not a fan of unexplained transitions (in this case from us to me, V2 and V17), or halfway riming poem structures (strophe 2 has a defined structure vs. the penultimate strophe having a separate structure and the rest of the poem lacking any altogether).
The language is very reminiscent of New Age religion, which to me, means it has a lot of pop without any actual meaning. I should be forward about the fact that I've studied/am studying physics at university. And I can tell you that infinite regressions are beautiful, but absolutely meaningless, if not downright vicious. I also know poetry doesn't have to hold to any standards but energy can be created and destroyed. It's more a question of whether or not your system is closed, and in this case, Dolores suggests that it isn't (because of THEM).
Outside of these two factors (personal preference insofar as structure and my disdain for the content of the poem), I think you have a handy poem. What I mean by that is I can appreciate where you're coming from and what you might be trying to do. I think all forms of poetry are good in some way or another. It just so happens that most cathartic poetry isn't enjoyable for strangers to experience (which, in all seriousness, this isn't).
And now I move on to Dolores...
In writing, there is often this tendency to borrow ideas, words, concepts, but to completely rip them of their context so as, unintentionally, rid them of their complete sense. A great example is the word "Quantum" which most people, correctly so, associated with physics. The problem is, they don't understand the scientific revolution in which the idea was born, or what exactly the word means besides referring to some physics-y thing.
In literature, this flies because most things are based on non-things, stories, fictions, spurious conjectures, etc. The idea is to tie two experiences, concepts, sentiments, etc., together - the way a well placed photograph, although only decorative, can completely change the vibe of a room. Meaning can be found through this basic concept of creativity, but there is a reason we left the uninhibited dreamlike creativity of romanticism behind in favor of science.
Quantum as an idea finds its root in a thing founded on the now widely accepted method of falsification. If a theory, or idea, if you will, cannot possibly under any circumstance be demonstrably proven as wrong, then it is essentially devoid of meaning. As far as science is concerned, meaningful statements are descriptions about the reality (see: world) we live and exist in. In other words, a non-falsifiable item is on the same level and literature, fiction, etc.
Although these aforementioned domains have value, they're equivalent to blunt and archaic tools. They're good as precursory tools, for fields in which we're basically inaudible babies (as opposed to say, well-versed experts). They given us vague ideas about how the world could be, which if it happens to be, leaves room for productive thought. But given the somewhat chaotic and complex nature of the universe, as a whole, once our attention was drawn away from our own navels, we realized we needed a much stronger, or rather, more precise tool.
The unfortunate truth, however, is that the epistemic foundations of science allow for a lot of externalities (see: religion, spirituality, supra-experiential concepts) otherwise known as metaphysics. And if there ever was a Queen of conjectural metaphysics, this lady was it. She treated science like a children's literature book and borrowed from it like an unknowing child. Let me explain.
The problem science faces with regards to the world is that it relies on our senses. We have long since determined that the world doesn't necessarily end where the span of our senses reach, if only by the mere inference of consequences which we do perceive.
Early religion, and well into the medieval era (you know, the dark ages, that period where we all just killed one another, ran around fornicating like wild unruly animals, and made few and far between technological developments), was a time in which it was accepted that the Truth (note the uppercase T) was a form of knowledge that exceeded knowability. This acceptance was formulated around a misconceived notion that the truth was absolute and singular (that it relied on nothing but itself and was one of a kind). We've since realized (let's call it via sociological relativity, aka god is dead) that there's no reason why the truth (lowercase t) need be the Truth; in fact, there really is no real reason for us to think that the Truth is at all even a real idea. For one, if it is, it sure as heck isn't falsifiable.
I don't really want to jump into explaining this idea too much, but it derives from pluralism, pragmatism, etc.; the idea that multiple perspectives of a singular point in reality can hold comparably amounts of validity (truth) while being vastly different and perhaps contradictory. A simple example would be two people standing on opposite sides of a single-sided see-through mirror. Both look at the mirror, one sees themselves while the second sees the other - yet both look at the same mirror.
It's like magic. It's in part why we realized that we needed to change the modus operandi of science (from seeking the one and only Truth to seeking things we can know).
The only other leading form of claims about the truth (in relations to the world) operate on a faith basis. This is basically religion and how, for the most part, it has always operated. They give you a story, and if you so choose, then you believe it is The Story (note this uppercase stuff? it's the same stuff as earlier). Intellectually, this route is considerably more lazy, because once you know, well, you know. Emotionally, however, it is an extremely difficult route, to say the least.
The problem with Dolores is that, she borrows from both of these domains without respecting any of their rules. Which means there is no foundation to any of her ramblings, no rigid structure to uphold her claims, to account for possible contradictions, etc. When she wrote her books, there's no way to discern whether she's talking about the world and reality as we live in it, or as 'we' the proverbial 'humans' of her 'world' of which she writes live in their world. It's not a parallel reality if I write a book about the world, be decidedly change certain things around (thereby creating fiction). In fact, the only reason why the concept of parallel realities hold is because it has value insofar as logic is concerned and because we cannot, as of yet, see why the concept is false. The only claim science can make about it, however, is simply that it is possible. Anything beyond that is both speculation and fiction.
If I could create and elaborate and convincing jabberwocky (a program that can output language but has no real sense of what any of it means), and have it formulate a haphazard spiritual claim, it would basically be Dolores Cannon 2.0. It wouldn't hold the same weight, though, because we know it's a program. But really, what is the difference between a computer program and a person's agenda, motives, or "intentions"?