Not really, not at this point. Naively, one can imagine scenarios where to understand important aspects of reality, you needed something else: maybe meditative connection with a superintelligence, or whatever.

However, it's quite apparent now that reality doesn't seem to work that way. It's all mechanism, no spirit. And for mechanism, you need science (which is just a way to pay attention to mechanisms and avoid fooling yourself).

So if you want to point science at quality of life research, you'll get things that look like "wisdom"--"close friends are more important than money", etc..

But you can point philosophy at things too, and in cases where it's hard to do experiments, there's no reason to suppose it's the worse strategy. It's fine! I don't argue with that. It's not part of philosophers (too often) being unreasonably bad at science. If you're not playing tennis, you're not being "bad at tennis". You're just not doing tennis. If you come onto the court with a racket and balls, keep hitting balls over the fence yourself, and can't get back balls that the person on the other side has hit over, then you're "bad at tennis".

Regarding Kant's transcendental epistemology being a dead end from the point of view of science, that's just my reading of the history of it. I don't know the history exquisitely well, so maybe I'm missing something.

Regarding transcendental idealism being a dead-end, it just doesn't help anything to introduce a separation between appearances and being at any deeper level than you can get from a purely physicalist perspective that takes into account that our senses work by a mechanism: they do not directly convey some sort of essence of the object. You can read the phenomena/noumena divide as a simple approximation to this, but as far as I can tell, it wasn't because of Kant that we ended up with a deeper understanding. We just kept digging, scientifically, and once we turned to the understanding of mind and perception with adequate tools, it brought the nature of perception into much clearer focus.

Naive realism is wrong, because it is naive. But transcendental idealism doesn't seem to be a path towards deeper understanding. This isn't wisdom. It's wisdom compared to naive realism, but not compared to a textbook on psychophysics, and psychophysics isn't an elaboration of Kant's ideas.

If you just want the simple version of "the perception is not the reality" wisdom, you can get it from Plato, or various other sources that are easier to ingest than Kant.