Lizzie, please tell me your post at 7.10 above was mischievous, ironic and witty; if I thought for a moment you were serious, I'd have to say 'keep an eye out of the window, not for faeries, dragons and unicorns, but for men in white coats'.
If you are serious, then I feel you have a huge misconception of the role of science. Science does not exist to explain everything, nor does it seek to. It tries to explore phenomena, using rigorous, valid and repeatable methods to test hypotheses which may or may not be proved true. If they are true, then knowledge is acquired. If false, then further exploration is indicated. The key difference between science and the less rigorous chroniclers of phenomena is that science has discipline and a strong system of peer review. It's nice to believe in faeries, dragons and unicorns, but it is important to remember that a lack of evidence that they don't exist is not the same as evidence that they do. If that was the case, I could say that the Great Stripy Gargle-Breathed Oojamaflip exists, and the fact that you can't prove conclusively that it doesn't means I'm 100% right. Silly, isn't it, especially since I nade it up?
Regarding New-age beliefs; stigweard is absolutely right, and there is evidence to support this. A good example is the ancient sport of Dwile Flunking, which many believe to be an ancient tradition; it isn't; it was made up one idle afternoon by the scriptwriters on 'Round the Horne'.
Finally; your comment to Ruth and Diane about your being regarded as 'dumb' and 'I know nothing'. That's what this is really about, isn't it? Make a wild assertion, and when challenged, retreat into the comfort zone of victimhood. As a tactic, Lizzie, it's old and tired, a bit like me. I'll listen and engage with your ideas as soon as you can produce a shred of testable and peer reviewed evidence for them, but until then I'll have to leave them on the shelf marked 'interesting but bonkers'.
Regards
Tim