The problem of answering your question with the scientific method, is that there are boundries. If not before, then since Darwin, science has taken a materialistic bent. Imho, by so doing, science disqualifies itself from investigating life after death. The soul could be an intangible part of a person; so could the mind or the spirit. Psychiatry bedevils itself, trying to apply the scientific method to discoveries about the mind. That's why, I think, in the 1950's, there was a Medical Arts building in Fort Worth.

If the soul and mind are to be taken out of their original religious context, then they ought to be examined by the Arts, not by science. Because science focuses on the material, only, it seems. And, it does that quite well.

So, I respectfully submit, that historians, philosophers and medical people bring science where it is awkward to apply its strengths. Don't get me wrong, medical science has made great strides in micro-biology; but then, in that field, discoveries bring about awkward ethics. That's all I'm saying, to that.

The heart of this post, is that people bring science beyond its operable limits, beyond its boundries, to discuss the intangible. That's why I demonstrated a tangible definition of a soul: to accomodate the materialistic bent of contemporary science. Science was not always materialistic. We've lost an insight, by gaining a material restriction to science, imho.

Let me stress, I am not saying that science invades; I am saying that some people try to apply science to an immaterial topic.

__________________
Salty
"...with God, all things are possible..." Even evolution