The Western, technological mind likes to compartmentalize things arbitrarily, or for convenience, rather than based on understanding.

Energy is usually viewed as either a) One facet of anything. In other words anything can be viewed in terms of "energy". Or b) a narrow classification into which certain things fall.

In the first instance, a person would normally perceive the gross physical world as a kind of "slow energy", there being no such thing as an utterly static physical object. The default state of everything would be "alive", though that "aliveness" is only visible to a person according to their ability to see.

In the second instance, there is energy, meaning light, heat, motion etc, and there is also non energy, meaning static objects. Living things generally are considered a bridge in which static matter contains a certain type of energy.

A person's perception of energy is derived entirely from their level of awareness.

You can come up with all sorts of complex explanations why one thing is "energy" or another thing is "not energy" but ultimately your belief is caused not by the facts you use to defend your view, but by your level of awareness.

Similarly, there is little use in "teaching" someone (i.e., academically) about energy as a quality that all "things" possess. You can teach people to recite anything, but people who learn that way are only learning to react, and thus are not able to walk alone.

A lot of traditions exist to teach about energy, ranging from Western scientific ideas to Eastern esoteric ones. Energy, as a subject of study, is more prone to abuse than most subjects. Energy itself is most often studied as a science, but the learning itself must be an art. In other words a person has to eventually dismiss each thing they have learned and replace it with their own idea.