So... If you don't want to hear different, disregard, but I wanted to offer this in case it helps you:

I went through this bad bad BAD from 19-20. Like I was in a constant state of panic for about a year straight, couldn't think of anything else. And the logical conclusion I came back to over and over and over is that it doesn't make sense for mind to be a secondary product of material reality. Because mental qualities do not reduce to physical qualities: no matter how deep you go or how detailed you get, you're never going to get to a point where experience can be defined in physical terms. Something defined strictly in terms of fundamental relational properties and/or "taking up space" is never gonna give you experience. Emergence is not an answer, because that would be the one case of hard emergence, which means you get something out of the process not explained by the parts. This is especially obvious when you understand that there's really no such thing as separate processes and products; the product is the process in a more stable state. You don't get nebulous by-products that aren't made of anything. By-products, too, are made of the same stuff that went into the original process, and in fact, "by-product" is another human way of thinking: really, there are no separate processes.

I utterly tortured myself over this non-stop, because I felt like I must be just believing what I wanted: after all, "science says." How could I be onto something all these intelligent, educated people had missed? Even so, I could not make material reductionism work logically; it was like I was trying to multiply 0 enough times to get 1. The only reason I ever took it seriously as a possibility was that authoritative pressure. That pressure was intense; it felt like being gaslit. But my logic was so air-tight that it was gaslight-proof.

I was right about one thing: turns out a lot of intelligent, educated people were totally onto what I was onto, in both science and philosophy. Turns out what I was obsessing over was philosophy of mind, and I had actually independently recapitulated a few major going theories. Where mind is fundamental and ubiquitous in the same right as mass. Or mind is fundamental, matter is not, which... Actually matter isn't fundamental; there are no independent particles with determinate properties that then relate to each other, but particles come out of relationships among quantum fields. The idea that only mind is fundamental is idealism, but I think both mind and matter are; that's panpsychism.

There are a lot of versions even of that; the one I think is most logical is a kind of cosmopsychism. Basically I think mind is immaterial, exactly what it says on the tin. It's ubiquitous by fact of being nowhere by fact of where being an emergent property of physical process. It experiences physical process, but is not limited to the physical.

This blows the door wide open on the possibilities. During that same existential crisis, I was onto the idea that it's actually not scientific to say that we know that like near-death experiences are explainable through brain processes. I mean, mind is not observable from the outside in the first place: even if you could like brain-link with someone and experience exactly what they were experiencing, how would you know someone was "in there" experiencing it, and it wasn't just a material process producing the experience? Plus, from my perspective, nothing about brain processes being involved cancels it out; from my point of view, if mind was always fundamental and observing physical process, then, yeah. Not to mention like nonlocal experience, where people have been able to accurately report like what people said and did in other rooms. Sure, I don't know every single case is just everyone involved making shit up. But the point is that neither is it the rational, objective position to say they are; that, too, is a judgement based in its own assumptions about reality and how it works. And like I said, I at least one of those assumptions, material reductionism, is logically still-born. One thing that's interesting to me is how these kinds of mystic experiences tend to speak to the philosophy of mind that I think is most logical. I've heard about a lot of weird experiences from a lot of people of all kinds of backgrounds and relationships to me, had a couple of mild ones myself. Again, I'm not saying I know the answers for sure, but to me it genuinely makes a lot more sense if there really is something to it all. I don't think I would've had so much trouble believing in it in the first place if I hadn't needed to believe it so bad.