No amount of us answering questions will change the fact that the fundamental burden of proof remains on those making the claim. You assert 'Naturalism'; we say 'prove it'.
Nope. The proof bit has been covered already; what I would add is that naturalism is a tentative, in fact conservative conclusion justified by a methodology with a proven track record of success in consistently serving up reliable knowledge of the nature of the world. If you want to make claims outside that, that's when we start asking interesting questions about the existence and nature of the methodology you propose to use - questions which are, without exception, continually deflected and dodged and just plain old ignored.
or put more honestly nature just looking at itself, explaining itself in it's own terms and making a punt that this is all there is. Naturalists being people sliding serrupticiously from a method to a philosophy hoping no one notices.
That the methodology works on nature doesn't help you out in anyway.
No, naturalism works on refining our understanding of nature, and the continued accuracy of the scientific method in predicting future discoveries validates the idea. It has nothing to say on whether there's anything else anywhere else, but unfortunately for you neither do you.
If you want to justify claims of spirits, gods, afterlives, souls and what-not you need more than just assertions, you need a methodology with openly stated and accepted limitations.
So far, it seems, you don't have that.
O.
