No one today can give you a definitive proof of abiogenesis. The Planet Simulator project shows some very promising results, however. Not to mention that it's just another of successful demonstrations in a long line of experiments such as Miller-Urey, etc.
https://globalnews.ca/news/4516282/mcmaster-researchers-planet-simulator/
When it comes to Modern Synthesis (and also approaches that expand on it), honestly, there is so much supporting data that the whole debate about evolution makes sense only in terms of functional details, not if the basic hypotheses are correct.
As for Kastrup, IIRC he equates “ontological basis” with consciousness, not mind. That's a huge difference.
With all that being said, I'm not surprised that what I say sounds confusing and contradictory to you. Perhaps the best way to explain it would be expanding on the “Circle of Growth”. As I've written elsewhere, “chronologically, it goes like this: big bang (creation of space and time) → data (randomly seeded laws of nature) → energy → matter → life → mind → realization (idea). Each successive stage then encapsulates all previous stages, i.e. there are no ideas without mind, no minds without living matter, etc. Take e.g. a stone, which is its own energy and data, that human mind renders into 'stone-realizations.'”
And all those stages happen simultaneously at the same time (e.g. we can still observe cosmic microwave background). Or better said, each successive stage is only a refinement of the previous one and is literally the same.
When I say that you never experienced anything beyond mind, it's not idealism. It's an observable fact. You don't perceive photons directly even though your retina interacts with them. Thus, for a human being as the product of the world of phenomena, all is mind and all is matter. Mind is merely an interface so to speak. Yet, it is only a configuration of what we call matter, which is nothing more than a more refined configuration of raw energy and data.
But when it comes to the absolute reality, it's neither mind, matter, nor anything else. You may call it by different names (God, Brahman, Tao, consciousness, etc.) but that may give a misleading impression that “ontological basis” is something “out there.” Just for the record, it's one of the reasons why e.g. Buddha allegedly never referenced the absolute in positive terms (sans the vague expression “suchness”) and why also Judaism is so particular about calling God by name. Thus, technically, neither matter nor mind exist. And yet, and to quote Ramana Maharshi, “The world is illusory, Only Brahman is real, Brahman is the world.”
