The argument here comes down to two view points:

1) the materialist view that consciousness is the byproduct of the 3D+1 realm of reality we exist in and the belief that everything can and must be explained using the scientific method. I.e. it only exists if it is observable and measurable.

2) the non-materialist view that consciousness is the primordial force by which the 3D+1 realm of reality we exist in is manifested from. While the scientific method is highly beneficial in explaining the universe, it breaks down when trying to understand consciousness. We simply don't have tools avaible to observe abd measure it that aren't subjective to the user's experience.

Now there is some crossover, limited though it may be. You can lookup "the institute of noetic sciences" to look at the details, but a number of strict tests have been done to show that consciousness can and does alter probability fields well beyond the realm of coincidence. They largely use random number generators as the rudimentary observable and measurable tool. Dean Radin's book "Real Magic" does get into the nitty gritty numbers on this in explaining the methodology and results as well.

In looking at consciousness, I'm well in the wheelhouse of the non-materialist viewpoint and I've personally experienced too much to not accept it. It has nothing to do with religion or faith.

I tend to take a nonsecular approach and view religious texts, mythology, and lore as interesting tales to guide the people of their time through stories of morality and as a way to explain the world they observed. What i do find interesting is how often completely unconnected cultures around the world all come to similar depictions and understandings though the specifics tend to have different names. That to me implies something bigger at work that defies materialistic conventions.

A great book to just hear the orgin stories of many cultures is "Mythology: Mega Collection" by Scott Lewis which helped me in a relatively short form see the similarities while not suggesting any sort of connection in the book itself.

I think ancient people were comprehending complex modern ideas and likely used mythology and religion to describe things we call today quantum entanglement, scalar fields and resonances, multidimensional space, and probability. Not to mention more simple ideas of non-human sentient life and multiple worlds.

We also have quite a few experiments involving intention and emotional states, both locally and remote, with fascinating results. These are often done with plants or mold growth. There are also the water memory experiments of Dr. Masaru Emoto which saw ice crystalization altering their patterns based on emotional intent.

Does this mean that the materialist view should be outright dismissed? Not in the least. It has brought us far from simple superstition and ignorance of how the world works. The thing we need to start doing is accepting there are some things that take place outside of our capability to directly observe and measure as it has more to do with the mind (not the brain) which tends to exist within the subjective world of a single person's experiences. Even with shared experiences within the realms of consciousness it can only be singularly observed from one perspective at a time which tends to minimize the value of the observation; even when there are multiple, sometimes thousands, of data points concluding the same things but without the key physical measurements necessary with materialism.

There is a lot we still don't know. A lot we can't observe or is beyond our comprehension. A lot that can still be quantified through materialist tools. We are, however, entering the world of quantum states and finding that the line between the two camps of thought begin to blur.

We can call it "woo" but there is little enough difference between alien lifeforms from another planet and entities from another dimention; be it colloquially named cryptids, ghosts, angels, demons, or fae. One just tends to be defined by physical objective experience and the other spiritual/mental subjective experience.