There is no such thing as 'hard evidence' for transcendental matters. That should be obvious.
Then in what sense can there be said to be 'evidence'?
These are philosophical matters and 'soft evidence' in the form of personal experiences is all you will get.
An experience could be evidence of an event, but it could equally be evidence of a misunderstanding, a sensory error, an hallucination, and given that we typically have to deal with the memory of the experience rather than the experience itself it could be evidence of failures of cognition and mnemonics.
We need to elevate our thinking and see how these philosophical matters can be integrated with the 'hard evidence' based scientific ideas.
Why? Because when we investigate using these reliable tools they don't give you an answer that you like? No, what we need to do is accept what the evidence shows us under investigation until, and unless, new evidence arises which, when investigated, shows something new.
Whether that's because of different evidence or a different methodology doesn't matter, but to just reject the answer you don't like without offering an alternative doesn't wash.
O.
