Why? There are actually valuable takeaways from this.
One would be that people are the weak point in your security system. If all your organizational security hinges on one guy not folding, that guy is the natural target. Whether a literal 5$ wrench is used or they bribe him makes no difference.
That means you could consider shaping your org in a way that is resistent against this by e.g. decentralizing secrets. That means instead of bringing a "5$ wrench" to one person (which may even work without raising suspicion), you now need to convince multiple people at once which is much more unlikely to work without being detected.
All you need to do is s/wrench/social engineering/ and you will understand exactly why it's such an effective--if not infallible--vector of attack.
The only defence is to not have the secret at all.
In a similar way sometimes the best way to protect data is not to collect it of if you collect it not keep it around in its raw form.
As for secrets, you sometimes need to have them for very good reasons. If you can reach the same goals without a secret while having the same protection going without a secret is a good choice.
But let's assume if you want the cryptographic protections of confidentiality (through encryption), authenticity (through signatures) and integrity (also through signatures or hashes) chances are someone somewhere has to store a secret. If that someone isn't you it is someone else (or something else).
But if you want to protect data with encryption and you should be the only one who can decrypt it I don't really know how you would do it without any form of secret.