"[Kastrup] calls these ‘myth’ and ‘no-myth’, the latter known more frequently as non-dualism, examples of which are Zen Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta. I consider myself to be in the former and, from what he has said over a period of time, Sender Spike to be in the latter."
No matter how Kastrup differentiates the "spiritual" paths, "no-myth" is culmination of "myth". See e.g. Ramakrishna who started as ecstatic devotee of Kali and only later embraced non-dual teachings. But first and foremost see how non-duality evolved from animism. We all go through these stages.
"I believe that my path is that of Karma Yoga, loosely translated as ‘serving the divine’. This is a recognised valid spiritual path in Hinduism."
It may be your dominant path, but unless you also embrace / incorporate jnana, raja, and bhakti you are out of luck. See e.g. Vivekanada. And although I have my gripes with the messenger, Sadhguru has a nice video on this too.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wrloqvk5sYg
"Sender Spike has told me that he has a background in physics"
This is a lie, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and ascribe your statement to a misunderstanding. All I ever told you about my education is that "I don't criticize Zohar's logic because my training in physics is better than yours (it's pretty easy to see where Zohar got physics wrong), but because I, unlike you, consider her rather close-minded in that she tries to shoehorn cherry-picked (sometimes even outright bogus) physics into her preconceived and incorrect theological assumptions about God / Absolute / etc."
"What I write about are not my out-of-the-box hypotheses, rather those of professional, highly qualified scientists whose ideas are considered worthy of public attention by reputable publishing companies. (We’re not talking about spaced out New-Agey hippy types with their heads in the clouds.)"
This is a lie, full stop. In e.g. the article on "new biology" you quoted:
1) Sheldrake -- a well known pseudoscientist, his "legendary" TED talk was a clear testimony that he either does not understand the basics of biology or is deliberately misleading to sell his books (the link to the talk is also here):
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Rupert_Sheldrake
2) Lipton -- a cancer quack and a classical anti-vaxxer (i.e. polio, smallpox and similar vaccines lead to autism) who (deliberately?) misinterprets epigenetics. This guy is outright dangerous.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Bruce_Lipton
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/jul/19/epigenetics-dna--darwin-adam-rutherford
Here is a nice 4-part blog series that goes through a moment when these two frauds met and their respective BS. The comments are also priceless: https://spiritualityisnoexcuse.wordpress.com/2014/12/14/aaaaarrrrrggghhhhh-rupert-sheldrake-meets-bruce-lipton-part-1/
3) Augros and Stanciu -- both hard core Christians in education as well as their teaching careers, with no actual research in their respective fields, one a Thomistic teacher of philosophy another a teacher of physics, together writing a book about biology. Lol, ok.
https://theimaginativeconservative.org/author/george-stanciu
https://thomasmorecollege.edu/faculty-staff/dr-robert-m-augros/
4) Joseph Chilton Pearce -- an inspirational writer, an epitome of what one would call “a new-age author”, and hardly a scientist.
5) Lovelock -- although he inspired many people to look at the biosphere in a holistic way, he was hardly the first on to do so, and he also said nothing what (no-woo) ecology didn't already know. One thing (among many) that totally refutes his idea is the great oxygenation event (but to his defense and AFAIK, GOE was not known at the time he came up with his hypothesis). Thus your assumption that "materialist sceptics will presumably continue to deny that the Earth is self-regulating" is completely off. The "materialist skeptics" will only say that Earth does not deliberate about self-regulating. It does it spontaneously by the means of inherent forces, processes, etc.
You should also understand that scientists don't bother with these folks in depth because it's a waste of time and resources, not because they try to suppress them. Also, despite Sheldrake’s antics to the contrary, Sheldrake's TED talk was not erased from their YT channel because of some censorship, but because TED folks were embarrassed to be associated with him (the talk should still be accessible through their page though).
"outright rubbish […] He is presumably including in that description one book by a distinguished University of Oxford Professor, Denis Noble"
No, Noble was just unlucky that you quote-mined him in the same piece. But as for why Noble is not the end of modern synthesis and why he didn't come with anything particularly groundbreaking you can see some articles by e.g. Jerry Coyne:
https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2016/11/23/once-again-a-call-for-a-revision-of-evolutionary-biology/
"Capra says, however, that Heisenberg went through the manuscript with him chapter by chapter"
Capra says a lot of things, so that's that. I never heard Heisenberg explicitly endorse Capra's work. I may be wrong, but please get a better proof.
"Sender Spike was critical of my approval of The Tao of Physics by Fritjof Capra, because he was to some extent inspired by Geoffrey Chew’s Bootstrap Theory"
I could not find this particular conversation, but IIRC my main gripe with Capra was that his theories were based on things that were meanwhile disproved and he didn't bother to update his book accordingly in subsequent editions. Frankly, I'm too lazy to go through tons of quantum-woo bullshit just to argue this one particular point.
"Distinguished mathematical physicist Henry Stapp says the same thing in almost identical words: “Everything we know about nature is in accord with the idea that the fundamental processes of nature lie outside space-time but generate events that can be located in space-time” [...] the hidden background is inaccessible"
Exactly. And they can be tested, etc. So, the explanations of effects must be in line with science. Yes, you cannot "measure" consciousness, but it's also not true that it can only be "inferred" or that it is inaccessible. Heck, you are that. Know the unknowable, as they say.
“All contents of the unconscious are by definition unobservable and inaccessible”
No. The content of the unconscious is only temporarily “inaccessible”. That is, it’s not in the focal point of awareness. And the focal point can be intentionally manipulated (it changes involuntary during sleep and trance-like states).
"Can [Sender Spike] name one famous scientist historically who says that he or she made an important discovery through meditation (in the sense of the standard spiritual practice)? I would assume rather that they used their powers of observation and reasoning."
Well not explicitly, but I would guess Jung, maybe also Freud, certainly the guy we know as Buddha (and he was explicit when it comes to meditation), but essentially anyone who turned observation toward oneself and one's mind, because that's what meditation is. It has nothing to do with so called spirituality (though many people reverently sit for hours on end and feel fucking spiritual). And the same applies to inquiry or reasoning about oneself. After all, knowing oneself is pure science, not some religious or spiritual pretzel-twisting.
And so on and so forth...anyway, do you have that “workable framework” I asked for? Yes or no.
