In difficult lighting conditions, the EVF display is nowhere near what the scene looks like. This is an example of that issue that I made a long time ago. The top, EVF view, is the out-of-camera JPEG. Note that this scene is NOT UNDEREXPOSED. There were still blown pixels in the raw data. It's just a high DR scene.
When you look up at a bright light source like this ceiling, your pupils (aperture) contract, and when you look at the ground, where it's darker, they widen. This is the effect of having 2 different exposures, much like an HDR photograph that takes multiple images and combines them. Your eyes do this seamlessly. Cameras do not.
Your photo demonstrates that you prefer to expose to preserve the highlights. Indeed, your image is exposed correctly for the highlights, but underexposed for the rest of the scene. When we photograph high DR scenes, we must always choose to expose for the highlights, shadows, or middle, and then compensate in post, like you have done.
RE: your first post that I replied to. In essence, you complain because an EVF doesn't show you the scene as it will look after you edit it, which you claim is the way the scene looked to your eyes. I say cameras don't work like that - in fact, no camera can capture a scene exactly as it looks to your eyes, since cameras and eyes operate differently. An EVF is just a tool, the purpose of which is to show you ~approximately~ what the camera is capturing ~before~ you push it in post. That said, many photographers prefer OVFs, and some likely always will, but the purpose of an EVF is different from the purpose of an OVF.