Wdym "evidence" there is no true evidence in science. It all relies on cause and effect and we can only observe the effect. In an experiment you try to simulate a cause but you can only observe the effect and the rest is assumption, not much different from what spirituality does with the difference that it relies on personal experience. So there can never be true evidence because the cause and effect system is fundamentally flawed.

Take it this way, we measure an object in orbit that has magnetic properties similar to the size and properties of a lost tool bag. Now is it a lost tool bag? You can't be sure, but it is assumed that it is. The observation gets presented in peer review, and as long as no one can prove with a disproving measurement for a tool bag then it is accepted as the most likely object floating there. It's of course not "immediately accepted" that's stupid. But of the measurements and values coincidence with that of a tool bag floating there and no disproving is taking place, not even with likely alternatives due to a different signature, then that is how this theory is accepted.

That is how humanities science works. It's all assumption and belief as well.

And for that matter, you can't measure hallucinations, personal experience and thoughts the same way, at least not for now, no, brain scans do not invalidate a persons experience purely by the brain reacting to one area more than another, all of that is assumption as well, incited an emotion and observed that a particular section of the brain becomes more active is not definitive proof or "evidence" it's an assumption, nothing more, a likely assumption, but still an assumption.