... and that can be possible even if we are biased, as long as we are not so biased that we proceed to make assumptions that prevent testing our hypotheses.

A very significant point. What scientist or scientific assistant would openly admit to being biased?
This is why many say that today's science has acquired a sacrosanct status, according to which the concept of fact is used like sliced bread, and compare this with previous dogmatic views such as those of ecclesiastical sovereignties.

That being said, science alone, based on empirical data, is not the holy grail it is stylised to be. Analysis is not everything in life. Knowledge has limits and someone who does not want to humbly acknowledge this is not a good scientist in my eyes.

Apart from measurable fields, rays, frequencies, etc., etc., there are tangible experiences in the human context, such as those I described, which are based on singing, movement and music and about which you have said nothing so far. The arts (anything in the realm of spiritual consciousness) are, in my view, relegated to their own corner from school and university life and are not really considered (or their work published or funded) by natural scientists as influencers of health and disease (or more generally, "consciousness").

To put it bluntly and in terms of a stylistic exaggeration: art students go to an MRI and have themselves examined, they undergo surgical procedures, get on aeroplanes and use modern technologies. But do science students also go to a séance, have a phenomenological family constellation done, try the effects of LSD, hypnosis, are curious about metaphysics, philosophy?