At a guess, SpukiKitty is trying to avoid having to consign any ancient group as having been utterly, completely, and irredeemably (?) incorrect as to the nature of reality. (Perhaps to avoid the admittedly worrisome idea that only a comparatively recent subset of humanity has been Enlightened™…I can definitely see how that would at least resemble cultural imperialism.)
That said, I often wonder if, assuming for now the reality of the spiritual (quiet, wait until I finish), they would see us in the same miraculous cast that we ascribe to the spiritual. In other words, should the spiritual be real, is it necessarily superior to the physical? Should it be lionized to the usual degree? (Never mind that to natives of the spiritual, the spiritual realm itself would effectively be physical…)
Basically, even apart from pareidolia explanations, I think we don’t peer that deeply into what the spiritual “must” consist of, and end up running on precepts that only have memetic momentum going for them. See, for instance, such influences as Platonic quintessence (i.e. the physical is “necessarily” warped, compared to the ideal that “must” exist in the aether, which at the same time “cannot” exist in our universe). Suffice to say I feel that even if an afterlife (more properly successive life? Lifespan instar?) were proven to exist, would it necessarily mean that divine beings existed? What part of the concept of an “afterlife” absolutely requires gods to maintain it? I realize afterlife-but-no-gods implies no guarantee of definite justice for the dead, but “no guarantee” doesn’t mean “no possibility”.
(And what are these little red dots that just appeared on me…?)