studying Endgame first, or Openings.

Will studying endgames first, be better for my chess advancement, than studying openings first , it’s just that I feel more comfortable , and relaxed, with endgame studying, than with openings .

This has been discussed to DEATH, soooooooo....I will chip in my .02

Start with the endgame first.

Dont remember who said it:

"A mistake in the opening you can recover from.  A mistake in the middlegame will hurt you.  A mistake in the endgame will kill you"

"... This book is the first volume in a series of manuals designed for players who are building the foundations of their chess knowledge. The reader will receive the necessary basic knowledge in six areas of the game - tactcs, positional play, strategy, the calculation of variations, the opening and the endgame. ... To make the book entertaining and varied, I have mixed up these different areas, ..." - GM Artur Yusupov

Equal amounts of opening and endgame is good, but you may as well start with simple openings first. It's hard to win a game when you drop pieces in the opening.

I think being ready for the endgame is important and therefore start there. Doesn't matter what opening you use as once it's in the endgame stages none of it matters but the endgame. Of course you have to make it there first and not get blown out early on. Learning some openings is good as well but endgames are more important I think.

"... if you have just learned to play, all you need to study is the section designed for beginners (Part One). After mastering the material there, put [Silman's Complete Endgame Course] away and spend your time studying tactics and a few strategic concepts, ..." - IM Jeremy Silmam (2007)

Totally depends on your skill level. If you study openings the right way they can be really useful. If you study them american interwebz way (or chess.com way however you want to call it) you are doomed. Capitalism never works.

Opening Principles will get you to a playable middlegame.  A middlegame plan, will get you to an endgame.  

true. endgames need to be learned first. however, in my case, i love endgames so much that I feel like I don't need to study them.

With openings you need to learn the "why" behind where the pieces, and pawns go, not just memorize lines of theory.  

With the middlegame, you need to learn how to develop a middlegame plan.

With the endgame, you better know what youre doing, or the first two wont matter.

Just to give you a heads up.  I'm studying only openings right now and I am not improving

I think you first need a small opening repertoire where you have a good idea what kind of middlegame it leads to.

But before you get caught up in all the variations etc. and explore a dozen openings, you should know endgame techniques including, besides the obvious basic mates, the Rule of the Square, the Principal of the Opposition, and the Rook plus Pawn vs Rook techniques to win if you have the Pawn (Lucena Position) or to draw if your opponent has the Pawn (Philidor Position).  How you can best play N vs B or vice-versa in the endgame is another biggie.

"... For beginning players, [Discovering Chess Openings by GM John Emms] will offer an opportunity to start out on the right foot and really get a feel for what is happening on the board. ..." - FM Carsten Hansen (2006)
https://web.archive.org/web/20140627114655/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/hansen91.pdf

Is there a post here that advocates that one only study openings?

"... In the middlegame and especially the endgame you can get a long way through relying on general principles and the calculation of variations; in the opening you can go very wrong very quickly if you don't know what ideas have worked and what haven't in the past. It has taken hundreds of years of trial and error by great minds like Alekhine and, in our day, Kasparov to reach our current knowledge of the openings. ..." - GM Neil McDonald (2001)