There’s probably an interesting distinction to be made between extenders of perception and that which allows us to perceive things otherwise unknowable. But be careful where you tread with some of those final words. You shouldn’t suggest science might eventually figure out how to measure some spiritual dimension, as that is not in keeping with your original position that this sort of realm is impenetrable to human perception even as aided by science.
Allow me though probe this idea further and ask you this; by what mechanism are you (or anyone) familiar with this spiritual dimension if not through some perception? Surely some feeling of bliss you feel while praying, for instance, is perceived, else we wouldn’t even be able to speak of the experience. Philosophers from Aristotle to Descartes have been peddling this sort of dualism, the complete separation of soul from physical body, for thousands of years. But as here, these arguments seem to fall flat when you carefully consider the mechanism by which a spirit must interact with, in order to influence, a body. Mustn’t there be this interaction, and therefore direct perception, in order for the one to influence the other?
I’m curious if you perhaps consider these to be two divorced varieties of perception, and if so where the distinction lies. It seems to me that they are really the same; that they seem different on the surface, but upon consideration they are found to be one.