Noted your use of the term ‘passion,’ and ‘energy’.
If it is not qualified accordingly it can be easily misunderstood. Note the controversial Hume’s ‘Reason is the slave to Passions …’
Kant was not misled.
Kant’s system comprised the Moral [pure[ and Ethics [applied] aspects. Kant understood for humanity to progress both the pure and applied aspects must work complementarily and interdependently.
Due to the very divergent sphere within the world of the empirical, practices [practical], pragmatic and the likes, Kant preferred [passion perhaps] to concentrate on the converging principles, systems and framework, i.e. the pure moral aspect rather than the applied ethical aspects. In addition Kant has limited time to deal with the ‘anthropological’, pragmatic-practices due to his age (64 when he wrote Critique of Pure Reason].
Kant did attend to the practices of the empirical world [he called it anthropology then - not the same as its current use ], but his work on this aspect was not significant.
There is a very strong correlation between Buddhism and Kantian philosophy in essence however Buddhism is not as systematic in its presentation. The additional feature that Buddhism over the theoretical Kantian system is its personal self-development program of the individual to align optimally with the natural moral impulse towards the ideal. This involve actual rewiring of the neural circuitry in the brain.
Thus in my case, whatever is omitted from the Kantian system is supplemented by the affective system from Buddhism.