This thread has better answers than most of the technical ones, so I'll put my own in without a structure for once.
I went back for three years, 2015 to 2018, in-house at a company that will mean nothing to anyone here. I did not go back because I was failing. I went back because I had got good enough at this that it had stopped being interesting, and a job was the only environment I could think of where someone would hand me problems I hadn't chosen.
That worked, for about two years. What ended it was a reorg that put me under someone who measured the thing I was doing by a metric that could not measure it, and I discovered that I could tolerate being bored but not being mismeasured. I suspect that's a personality trait rather than a principle.
The part worth passing on: I came back better. Three years of having to explain my reasoning to people who could veto it made me much harder to fool, and almost everything I've written on this board that anyone has bookmarked comes from that habit rather than from anything I learned before or since.
So the answer to the thread is yes, it's survivable, and it is not the failure everyone here quietly assumes it is. The people who never consider it are not obviously doing better than the people who did.