I disagree with the "doing nothing is good for the soul" one only for UBI experiments bearing out that even in a vacuum of satisfied needs people will still tend to make project work for themselves just to have something to do to not be bored.
Being able to relax at one's own discretion and necessity is healthy, but having something to say you do for yourself is evidently somewhere in that hierarchy of needs.
It is definitely healthy to be able to take time and actually do nothing though. Like having a cup of tea in the morning, and just sitting and waking up slowly. That's good for the soul
I believe the spirit of "doing nothing is good for the soul" in the context of the whole, is pointed more at the dissolution of the thought that you ought to be doing something productive.
I would credit you the question, can one ever "do nothing?" Sitting on a park bench is something. Listening to birds in the morning is something. Breathing is something. These things are good for the soul, they are not "productive" in a capitalistic sense and I think that is the point of the list.
Well at that point we're stepping into the realm of the "read theory" international english dictionary.
Like you said, none of those activities are what reasonable people would consider "doing nothing", so why should we give credence to the capitalist notion of such by quoting it?
At the same time my earlier point still stands, there are very few people in this world that are actually capable of feeling personally satisfied living in a fashion where they have nothing to fill their days with.
We can recognize the balm to the spirit a calming walk, or a day relaxing under the sun, or even just a day staying bed can be to the spirit without adopting a rhetoric that makes it seem that those are permanent states to aspire to.
I have this theory that much of the world's conflict comes from miscommunication or misinterpreting original intent and this is a great example. Who's right? idk! But both sides are adamant they are.