Idealized Answer: The meditator.
The question is not answerable, of course, because the descriptions are not mutually exclusive, nor could anyone's knowledge be entirely limited to either description.
Having said that, one could logically learn "all about" physics, biology, and mathematics, while still having very little knowledge of philosophy, not to mention the insights into phenomenology, desire, and consciousness presumably grasped through meditation.
But the reverse is not the case.
Ideally construed, to be a "top notch philosopher" might well entail a knowledge of physics, mathematics, and biology. And meditation might further extend the philosophical knowledge to an even more inclusive grasp of consciousness. The second description is simply not as constrained as those of the natural sciences, yet might ideally include them, provided no knowledge is lost in the extraneous wool-gathering.
Moreover, there is the problem of "reality." What definition of reality could apply to both descriptions? The scientist probably would not accept the philosopher-meditator's knowledge as true justified belief. Again, the reverse is not necessarily so. The philosopher-meditator might well accept and fully understand the scientific knowledge as true justified belief, while also regarding it as partial within a broader, more reflective context.
So the philosopher-meditator, whose "proper sphere of knowledge" is not technically self-limiting, could hypothetically lay claim to the greater "reality," if we regard reality as concentric, reflective, synthetic, and cumulative.