I don’t seem to be able to make this come up as a response to the comment about whether a person with unusual experiences can also study them as a scientist, so I’ll add it as a new post here…
“Are you suggesting that even someone with anomalous perceptions can contribute to a scientific study of such experiences as a scientist and not simply as a “lab rat” to be studied?”
I think you’re worried about the problem of bias here, and it’s reasonable to think about it. One of the great strengths of science is the commitment to be as objective as possible and to report the facts, the data, and keep your interpretations of the data logically close to the facts, rather than distorted by personal preferences and beliefs.
But how far do we want to take this? Should we say that only blind people can study vision because sighted people may be biased? That only deaf people can study hearing since hearing people may be biased?
You could argue that sighted and deaf people will have insights into the stuff being studied that are great advantages.
They still have to watch out for their personal biases. For example, I have a dear friend of many years who has made her living as a psychic, but I have never formally studied her, interesting as that might be, because I know I might well be too biased and unable to compensate for that bias.
Questioning your own experiences? Sounds like exactly what I would expect of a scientist. A “believer” would say “My experiences are sacred and prove Doctrine X, it would be heresy to question them!” A scientist would think, “Here’s my data, what I saw/experienced, it’s interesting to interpret it by theory A, also interesting to see if from the point of view of theory B, maybe there’s another theory that will work even better, I’ll tentatively say theory D works best for now, let’s go on and see what happens….”