Well, Bill, there's a closed loop involved here. As such, it makes a perfect chain of perfectly defensible barriers against the possibility of that which you say you entertain as possible. At least so it seems. For example, "beliefs" are kind of tainted data because they are so unrepeatable, plastic, and subjective. And therefore, they must be ruled out. Furthermore, since beliefs tend to fuel the imagination, any OOB experiences, since they aren't physical or easily reproducible, must be imaginary as well. And so on around the chain.
I have endeavoured many times to point out the gaps in this chain mail. But no go, there; the viewpoint-as-object defense is immutable.
The claim of arrant nonsense is not meant antagonistically, and I apologize for venting. You know I loves ya, man. But the continuous reduction to materialism is, in my view, not genuine philosophy, since it sweeps aside so much in our philosophic heritage--BErgson and Plato, for two--by subordinating them to the machinations of the driest Prussian version of anti-semantic method.