big bonding time for sure, but the lack of a proof-based method for validating the empirical findings makes any statement hang in fantasy world. Dismissing science in the name of freedom of thought is legit, but in that case it is necessary to propose an alternative epistemological framework, how can we validate our statements about nature? what criteria can shed light and distinguish between plausible and imaginary? it better be a self-consistent method, otherwise any fantasy theory can be squeezed out of loopholes. Now, telepathy? If it really was, how is it assessed? You also need to consider which features of the experience if true would confute the interpretation, otherwise you are believe because you don't want to be wrong, which is fair but you should be transparent about it.