Wow, Dannyboy1, that was some condensed history of everything! I've been here before. I get all excited about some new-fangled fizzicks and think that's where God is, it's ok, we can get back to praying when we want something. The problem always seems to be that when these ideas are taken out of context, they can be moulded into shapes that resemble ancient wisdom, but perhaps are quite different. Particle entanglement, for instance, may have been demonstrated, but not its usefulness in the business setting.
I sense your genuine love of the subject and excitement about the new physics, but people who know about quantum mechanics in detail laugh at such suggestions, so I'm not sure I hold much store by them.
Anagogy, I haven't read any of the books you've read, but Deepak Chopra, whom the
Guardian described as 'the rock star of the new spirituality', struck me as quite biased and utterly unable to string logical arguments together, in his book
Life After Death, which I read recently. Let me give you an example. He argues that we can tell that we are immortal - never having been born, and never to die - by the following thought experiment:
You know that you are alive now, right? Ok. Now try to remember a time before you were alive. Can you do that? No? Well, that is because you were never born. It actually proves that you can't have ever not been in existence! Furthermore, since you were never born, you can never die.
He seems to offer this as a serious, reasoned argument, begins the book with it and certainly makes no stronger claim. He also makes ridiculous claims about so-called evidence for souls from OBEs (out of body experiences), which again are just joining the dots from what is reported, via more hearsay and assumption, to arrive at the conclusion he believes already. Now I don't know about you, but I can't remember the last time I was in deep sleep. So by his reasoning, I have never been asleep. He puts quite a spin on not remembering a period of unconsciousness. The assumption from never having been born to never dying is equally ridiculous.
Some of those authors might be more in the know than Chopra. You might be right, I don't know. "I don't know" is a useful position when we don't know. You should try it, since almost everything you've written is really extremely conjectural. I am getting close to not bothering to pick those kinds of books up off the shelf now, like the English psi researcher, Susan Blackmore, who retired from the weariness of endlessly looking for spookiness and failing to find any. She describes on her website the arrival of another document regarding a psychic claim to investigate and just realising that life is short and you can only spend so long turning over stones and finding nothing and saying it might be under the next one.
There has to be
some connection between all parts of the universe, but unless you are going to specify what those connections are and under what conditions they operate, you are just talking woo. Everything in the universe can be energy and yet you not have an immortal soul, be able to levitate or time travel. Yes, the uncertainty principle and qm and chaos theory are really cool, but let's not get carried away here.
The evidence seems to be mounting for a deep connection between all paranormal phenomena, from souls to ghosts to astral planes to healing crystals to angels to God, and that connection is a complex field of human error, desire, vague concepts, poor reasoning and magical thinking. Part of that evidence is from psychological research, and part of it is from real science developing models of how the human animal developed the emergent property of self-consciousness, no woo required, 100% fact, just add attention. I'm just at the beginning of looking into what the facts are that they discover (having been busy weirded out on shadows for most of my life). I'm sure that some scientists are going all mystic zen, but most of them aren't.
The 'evidence' of blood cells and lie detector tests? Silly. Utter tripe. Sorry. I'm happy to follow links if you can provide them and discuss any of these points further. Even lie detectors are so unreliable as to have been outlawed in the courts of many countries, AFAIK, and quite what anyone would be trying to establish by connecting one up to a bunch of human cells and asking the donor questions is anyone's guess. For a scientific study you would need dozens, if not hundreds, of participants. Had it shown anything significant, others would have repeated it. The discovery of human cell entanglement would by now be on its way to winning somebody the Nobel Prize. Of course, if particles can be entangled, they can be in someone's cells, but the result is NOT EVER going to be demonstrated by a lie detector. Have you checked the date of your source. It's not April 1 is it?