I guess I still get confused with the 'proof' versus 'evidence' semantics. I think what you have lined up here is evidence, and a line of reasoning, not necessarily proof. Though one may argue semantics, the distinction between the words adds clarity and credibility.

I happen to favor the idea of soul. One of the professors at the University of Virginia made a significant statement, which i am paraphrasing, 'whether you believe in soul or not, there is sufficient evidence for reincarnation being a thing that it warrants further investigation.' He wasn't saying soul, but I would be surprised if that wasn't his fallback position.

I read lots of books, for and against. Technically not a book against soul, the book 'Who's in Charge' by Michael Gazzaniga is very clear- consciousness is an illusion. I recommend reading it because there is some interesting science in it which seriously contradicts are experience of reality.

It is also reasonable for folks like one particular person who left a comment here to read outside his bias, if for nothing else to examine something humans have been confronting since at least Plato's time, if not further back. Like, Dean Radin. Credible guy suggesting psy influences normal matter. Moody, Monroe, Atwater, and Newton are just some people that offer a window into something that is strange and just as much a part of our reality, even though we can't measure it yet.