Yes, but not consistent with your just previous reply. "Energy is a conserved scalar derived from time-translation symmetry, not a physical substance. Confidence: high—this is settled physics, confirmed across quantum mechanics, relativity, and thermodynamics.

Feynman's view on energy is the same as the mainstream physics definition: energy is a conserved scalar, not a substance.

Feynman was precise about this. In his lectures, he called energy "a most abstract thing" and warned against picturing it as a physical stuff. He would agree that energy is a conserved quantity derived from time-translation symmetry, not a "thing" that exists independently. The retrieved evidence does not contain any statement from Feynman himself, so this draws on well-known aspects of his teaching rather than a specific citation.

The confusion in your question is the phrase "real science." Feynman rejected the idea that science deals in "real" essences. Physics describes what energy does—it is conserved, it transfers, it has forms—but it cannot tell you what energy is in some ultimate metaphysical sense. That question belongs to philosophy, not physics.

My call: Feynman would reject the framing of the question, not endorse any particular answer about what energy "really" is. Confidence: high—this is consistent with his published lectures and his well-documented views on the limits of scientific explanation.