The incorporeal definition aspect in the light of science and evidence-based truths is where I think that spirituality is not a tangible element. Supernatural phenomena, not being verifiable is questionable as to its validity.

The wonder of the universe can be appreciated greatly by scientists without it being incorporeal. As humans, we all are edified by laughing children, etc. etc. We can experience wonder and awe without the notion of a vague "spirituality", an incorporeal essence or an unverifiable mist. The term has its problems.

The definition in the current use of the term has not been sufficiently established to give it credibility. "Spirituality" defined as being a product of a "spirit" is a tautology that doesn't help its understanding.

If a religion is therefore personal, can it be made up personally by the individual without being institutionalized? Can the worship of money or war constitute a religion?

Was Soviet Marxism a religion? How about fascism?

It appears that the dictionary definition above seems to tie "spirituality" to institutionalized religion.

The idea that it is self-evident and everybody knows what we're talking about here is pretty misleading.

So in order to define what it is (spirituality) we would have to know how each person thinks that it is and compare notes.   I think it's a substitution for institutionalized religion.