You're going to find 'spiritual sources' whom are on both ends of the spectrum. It all comes down to what you idealize. You will affirm those 'masters' who reflect those teachings which you yourself support. It's called confirmation bias. That is how people navigate philosophically.
As a very good example, the Dalai Lama is actually not a vegetarian and eats meat. I think Buddhism is one of the best examples to use because it's often cited as one of the core sources for 'compassionate thinking'.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_vegetarianism
In general, it seems their philosophy is "it's okay to eat meat as long as the animal wasn't killed specifically to be meat". Of course, some schools are more strictly vegetarianism but it's not universal by any means.
"In Tibet, where vegetables have been historically very scarce, and the adopted vinaya was the Nikaya Sarvāstivāda, vegetarianism is very rare, although the Dalai Lama, the Karmapa, and other esteemed lamas invite their audiences to adopt vegetarianism whenever they can. Chatral Rinpoche in particular stated that anyone who wished to be his student must be vegetarian. Contradictory to the compassionate Tibetan Buddhist traditions in which a sanctity of life, both human and animal, is cherished, meat is often consumed as a form of sustenance due to lack of vegetation readily available. For example, Tibetan medicine emphasizes the necessity to acquire and sustain a balance between the bodily fluids of wind (rlung), phlegm (bad kan), and bile (mkhns), in which a meatless diet would disturb and eventually lead to fatigue. The 18th century Tibetan religious leader Jigmé Lingpa suggested that Tibetan Buddhists who wish to consume meat, but also do not want to sacrifice their religious beliefs, should recite a prayer over their plate of meat in order to purify it before it is consumed. This is said to create a favorable interconnection between the consumer and the animal, assisting it to attain a finer rebirth."
I just thought that was an interesting 'half-way' between the extremes.
As a very good example, the Dalai Lama is actually not a vegetarian and eats meat. I think Buddhism is one of the best examples to use because it's often cited as one of the core sources for 'compassionate thinking'.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_vegetarianism
In general, it seems their philosophy is "it's okay to eat meat as long as the animal wasn't killed specifically to be meat". Of course, some schools are more strictly vegetarianism but it's not universal by any means.
"In Tibet, where vegetables have been historically very scarce, and the adopted vinaya was the Nikaya Sarvāstivāda, vegetarianism is very rare, although the Dalai Lama, the Karmapa, and other esteemed lamas invite their audiences to adopt vegetarianism whenever they can. Chatral Rinpoche in particular stated that anyone who wished to be his student must be vegetarian. Contradictory to the compassionate Tibetan Buddhist traditions in which a sanctity of life, both human and animal, is cherished, meat is often consumed as a form of sustenance due to lack of vegetation readily available. For example, Tibetan medicine emphasizes the necessity to acquire and sustain a balance between the bodily fluids of wind (rlung), phlegm (bad kan), and bile (mkhns), in which a meatless diet would disturb and eventually lead to fatigue. The 18th century Tibetan religious leader Jigmé Lingpa suggested that Tibetan Buddhists who wish to consume meat, but also do not want to sacrifice their religious beliefs, should recite a prayer over their plate of meat in order to purify it before it is consumed. This is said to create a favorable interconnection between the consumer and the animal, assisting it to attain a finer rebirth."
I just thought that was an interesting 'half-way' between the extremes.