And this is from you strong understanding of science and the scientific method? You seem incapable of learning. There are many opinions, but science is a methodology, it doesn't hold opinions. Scientists do. Science investigates things like OBE, NDEs, ancient aliens. Science has thus far not found any credible evidence that they are anything more than natural events. Science is still open to more investigation. The people you choose to listen to, ignore the scientific method. If you have read much about the history of scientific advance, you would understand why and how we are where we are. You would understand that people want the answers regardless of where they lead and if that leads to a fact that consciousness can be explained as an emergent phenomena that evolved over millions of years and is 100% the effect of chemicals and neurons, you shouldn't be dismayed that we don't live on forever, you should be amazed at how incredible nature is.
That is my spiritual experience, when I look into a patch of sky with nothing there and see trillions of new worlds; when I marvel at the adaptations that have created such an incredibly diverse biosphere, I am in awe. If you believe we live on forever in new realms, that's fine and I will never be able to disprove it, it is unfalsifiable, which makes any positive claim without empirical evidence, which by nature of the definition of spiritual, is impossible, then we will forever be at an impasse. That you can't accept that and continue to believe that we are close minded idiots, then so be it. Just understand that there is good reason to remain skeptical about things that can't pass the rigors of the scientific method and be accepted by mainstream science; while at the same time, there are multitudes of reasons how uncritical thought can get you into trouble. An example of fringe thinking that was right might be helpful. Continental drift theory was soundly rejected by the mainstream, and probably rightly so because it lacked a testable mechanism. That changed with sonar examination of the ocean, new evidence, offers credible explanation, rejected hypothesis reworked with new data, plate tectonics has strong reliable confirmatory data. Give me something like that and my mind is changed and you are correct.
This is really the crux of all of our issues. You reject methodological naturalism, and at that point, we loose all common ground. You will never accept naturalistic explanations for everything, no matter how convincing, and in that way you become attached to dogma.