I guess I'm missing something because I thought what nun advocates is pretty close to what Bill Bernstein and other financial pundits have said to do to avoid sequence of returns risk from ruining your retirement: having your essential expenses covered by income from SS, pensions and non-risky asset classes:
"Bernstein defines a risk-free portfolio as one adequate for a basic retirement—a so-called liability-matching portfolio. With a liability-matching portfolio, you earmark certain assets to pay for your basic retirement expenses, or liabilities. “Anything in excess of that can be invested in risky assets,” said Bernstein. “For some folks, that’s going to mean a 100% fixed-income portfolio, and for wealthier clients, something far more aggressive.”
How to avoid sequence-of-return risk - MarketWatch
and
"A lot of people had won the game before the crisis happened: They had pretty much saved enough for retirement, and they were continuing to take risk by investing in equities. When you've won the game, why keep playing it? "
"You want to end up with a portfolio that matches your liabilities, meaning the amount you'll need to spend in retirement. The rule of thumb I came up with, based on annuity payouts and spending patterns late in life, is that you should save 20 to 25 times your residual living expenses -- that is, the yearly shortfall you have to make up after Social Security and any pension. This portfolio should be in safe assets: Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities, annuities, or even short-term bonds. Anything above that, you can invest in risky assets. That's your risk portfolio. If you dream about taking an around-the-world trip, and the risk portfolio does well, you can use it for that. If the risk portfolio doesn't do well, at least you're not pushing a shopping cart under an overpass."
https://www.bogleheads.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=125285