this was truly a great article. he nails down exactly why not only the academics but even the religious often want to debunk actual, concrete evidence. i, too, when i have argued with people that god will ultimately be scientifically proven, have gotten that argument that it would be no good because we should believe out of faith.
well, what is faith, if not a kind of intuitive feeling, and whence this feeling? if you are religious and believe you have a soul and a conscience, then that faith if based upon something real, even though you can't quite pin down why you have it.
and what about those less blessed with this inner intuition?
and, he rightly also points out that if the evidence became widely and publicly accepted, it would change our culture tremendously, which of course many don't want.
the only thing i would argue with him about, is the calling of the spiritual reality "non material" or nonphysical:
this in my opinion is a false way of thinking, and actually is based upon thinking within the old paradigm. because spiritual things are so mysterious we label them as nonphysical. but are they? if they are non physical then how do they influence matter? if they are nonphysical, in what way do they exist?this kind of case—and there are lots of them—shows quite straightforwardly that there are nonphysical ways in which the mind can acquire information. hence materialism is false.
for example, we have this huge electromagnetic spectrum, of which we now know we can perceive with our senses just a small portion. and yet those xrays that we can in no way sense are very real, and even will kill us and destroy our dna. if there is esp, or if the soul leaves the body and watches people converse in the waiting room, there is a way, a mechanism, by which this happens.
i think that there are energies which are very subtle, which indeed operate within other dimensions, but it is all one continuum of existence.