What I would like to briefly suggest now is that many different explanations for something can be true at the same time, even if our initial inclination is to think it must be one or the other or that explaining something from one angle negates the truth of explaining it from another angle. To an extent I am referring here to the moral of the elephant in a dark room story.
In various versions of the tale, a group of blind men (or men in the dark) touch an elephant to learn what it is like. Each one feels a different part, but only one part, such as the side, the leg, or the tusk. They then compare notes and learn that they are in complete disagreement. (From Wikipedia)
However, even more so I am referring to what would happen if the men were not even using a common sense (touch) to describe the elephant. Maybe one was using his sense of touch, one his sense of taste, one his sense of sound, etc.
The reason I bring this up is that I will be describing things from multiple similar perspectives, such as from religious/spiritual/metaphysical perspectives as well as describing the same things from a psychological perspective and at times from a biochemical/physiological perspective. I am hoping you will fight your urge to think only one of the many perspectives can be true, and spend some time in the initially scary uncertainty where multiple perspectives merge and provide greater clarity.