Analogue modern masters?

Is it possible, today in the modern age, to be a GM and top player with little-to-none computer use and experience ?

I'm thinking of the classic images of Fischer bent across his board and poring over plays from printed books and magazines. If a young-ish Fischer was playing today and continued to work in the 'analogue' way he did, would he still conceivably be top of the tree?
My own feeling is that, while computers may have brought the game on in leaps and bounds in some respects, they have also made the game rather soulless. It's almost about who has the best software and hardware, rather than a human game of wits as it once was. Perhaps that's why I feel so much more excited and interested in seeing images of Capablanca, Tal, Fischer etc that today's elite.

Interesting take, thanks. I still feel there's a soulless element to it all, and a bit of willy-waggling - "my processor's bigger than your processor" (If you catch my drift).
I'm not afraid of the digital revolution in chess - I just don't particularly find it appealing.
You haven't answered my question, though: if a young in-his-prime Fischer was around today, and trained using only his board and printed study aids, would he get to the top of the tree?

Very nicely put. 😎

No, it doesn't matter, just idle curiosity. There's something about the rebel figure armed with roll-up board and a book or magazine under one arm that stirs the soul that much more than talk about engines.

I want to improve my chess, but I aim to do it mainly with paper and the printed word and a board, because that feels tactile and sensual to me and therefore more enjoyable and also therapeutic, which is the main thing. Also, because reading from a screen too long gives me a headache and makes me feel antsy.