I think we should stop calling my variables "lexical", but rather "private".
Whatever the intrinsic merits of calling them "lexical", we certainly should not call them "private" because that has an established, widely understood meaning which is different from what these variables are. I refer to private members of classes in OO languages such as C++ and Java.
In fact, "lexical" is a very good name for these variables, because the scope (that is, visibility) and lifetime* are both determined by the static lexical context of the code. You can read the code and know exactly where the variable can be seen and used.
* Of course, both of these things can be "escaped" through references; that's beside the point.
I reckon we are the only monastery ever to have a dungeon stuffed with 16
,000 zombies.