I admit ratioalwiki is biased and Coyne is obviously a no-go for you as he openly identifies himself as neo-Darwinist. So, I expect that no amount of evidence will convince you that Sheldrake, Lipton and those two Christians are complete rubbish (Noble and Lovelock, although not without merits, are also not the end of modern synthesis, and you obviously misinterpret Jung).
To quote Wikipedia founder (I would guess you will have your objections :D): "What we won’t do is pretend that the work of lunatic charlatans is the equivalent of 'true scientific discourse'. It isn’t."
Thus, what I'm asking of you is to show me how Sheldrake's et. al ideas comply with scientific requirements. Simple as that. I don't disagree with your criticism of academia and materialists, but a modicum of rational scrutiny of your sources would be more than welcome.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_hypothesis#Criticism
https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/epigenetics-it-doesnt-mean-what-quacks-think-it-means/
https://skepticalinquirer.org/2000/09/the-psychic-staring-effect/
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ruperts-resonance/
http://skepdic.com/morphicres.html
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg15220594-800-review-hang-the-reductionists/
As for my articles, I have already written plenty and I don't feel any need to repeat myself. Here is some theory:
https://senderspike.medium.com/heaven-on-earth-7d83596d4a0b
https://senderspike.medium.com/being-is-knowing-completeness-75db5c9c6349
https://senderspike.medium.com/mind-brain-and-consciousness-9127f14dea4
https://senderspike.medium.com/reincarnation-karma-science-d3ffb27fc8a3
And here is the experimental part:
https://senderspike.medium.com/the-universal-path-to-liberation-3d19edf1bf5b
Have a nice day :P
