JIm,

(Respectfully) This is very naive.  The "mundane world" is a contrivance
of the human mind/ CNS and perceptual apparata that is constantly
filling in the gaps of "received" information, and even the received "evidence"
is contorted by human perceptual and mental capacity.  And then
a bunch of humans get together and agree on the basis of their shared
capacities and blind spots, and call this scientific consensus, and
describe it with a mathematical poem or some cartoon-like PowerPoint
images. 

Your remarks are just simplistic scientism that bifurcates what is 
ostensibly "mentation" (e.g., that of some religious practitioners)
from other mental experience which you like to call "reality."
I fail to see any evidence for your belief that one act of human
imagination (so-called empiricism) is more "real" than another,
i.e., some types of religious experience.  This belief also indicates
that you don't have much experience with the religious life of
grown-ups.

I can happily report that this position of suspicion about "reality"
is a prominent one in my Religion&Science Working Group at Yale
(held by scientist and religionist alike).  I have never heard any working
scientist refute this.

Steve