The ratio of benefit to potential drawback seems unappealing though. There are plenty of other types of food that would fulfil that "deep primal satisfaction from eating something directly from the wild earth", and orders of magnitude more if you also include the sea.
The benefit / drawback ratio for mushrooms is close enough to plants that it should be a non-factor. The real issue is familiarity. When you’re out in the woods, you’re surrounded by plants that are mostly inedible and often toxic. But you already learned that “most plants are inedible,” and you are familiar enough with the plants/parts that are edible to make it seem much less risky, since you ignore 90% of what you see before asking “can I eat that?” You don’t eat random berries; you stick to easily-recognized ones like raspberries or strawberries. You’ve been warned about poison ivy since you were a kid. Very few people eat the common herbs that are around because they don’t recognize them as edible.
Mushrooms are harder to find and less familiar. If you take a few hours to study up on one or two edible mushroom species (and their lookalikes, if they have them) you’ll find that it’s just as easy to positively identify them as it is an edible plant—which is to say, it’s not trivial but not too hard either. The defining characteristics are just different from what you’re used to looking for.
Chanterelles for example have a couple of lookalikes, but the real ones have ridges that run down the stem and not gills. Morels have a few lookalikes, but the real ones are hollow inside.
The differences between edible cow parsley and deadly water hemlock are IMO harder to spot than either of the above.
As someone who rarely picks I would never pick a white mushroom for example because it is high risk even there are edible variants. However I'm sure when it comes to chanterelles and penny buns for example and those (+ one or two more) are plenty for me.
