As I imagine Elisa is unlikely to post about this herself, I draw your attention to an excellent interview with her at 3am. As you might expect, it is scholarly and philosophically sensitive. She discusses a/theisms, philosophy of language and action, the challenges of doing philosophy with Sanskrit texts, and more. An excerpt in which she explains the apauruṣeya nature of the Vedas in Mīmāṃsā:
Their presence is a brute fact, just like the existence of language is a brute fact and theories about their origin are much more cumbersome than the acceptance of the fact that they exist and that one could not imagine a scenario without them. One cannot imagine a scenario without language because it is impossible to create a language unless you already have linguistic resources (how else would you communicate with others about the conventions you want to stipulate?). One cannot imagine a scenario without the Vedas because there is no way to invent a teaching about our duties out of direct experience, since there is no fundamental link between what there is and what ought to be. Human beings could not achieve any deontic idea out of the sheer observation of the world as it is. The Veda is, therefore, our only access to the ought. Either one follows it, or there is no way to know about one’s duties.
Check it out at 3am.