Sorry, but couldn't the FIRE movement be seen as egotistical instead of a liberating goal?

With regards to this,

A valedictorian from the The University of Queensland shared a TED talk.

Her story is one of many in the Financially Independent Retiring Early (FIRE) movement supporting the idea that end-of-life retirement is optional.

Lacey considers herself time rich: able to choose if, when, where, how, on what and with whom she works. This was achievable because of Lacey’s financial position: she started investing at 19 and now earns a passive income.

Before FIRE, she used to work in Australia’s ‘wild west’ with a high flying career in mining. A health scare and her sister’s suicide opened Lacey’s eyes to the world beyond work, leading her to redesign her life and take five mini-retirements in the next five years.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XSHNDyinZSQ&fea...

Surely egoistical, when You do not become somkind of a Ghandi afterwards. Or not ... it's a very individual thing, all depends on what You are doing afterwards, and how happy You and Your loves ones are with that.

You're right: alienation of capitalism and maybe no opportunity (or no motivation) to find

that one profession of passion.