If

[Little Rik]

The people who define what religion and spirituality is haven't got a clue what religion and spirituality are.
They don't practice spirituality so how the hell would they know what it is.

They would say the same about you, and they would have exactly as much evidence as you do. You cannot --by your own definition-- differentiate yourself from them, nor they from you.

You (and they) created this situation by insisting that the material or natural world cannot detect nor explain the supernatural (or mystic, or spiritual, etc). But that means that you have no way to show that their claims are wrong and yours are correct, except by making the exact same arguments, which cannot be falsified. They have their proof, and you have yours, and if we mix them up in a bowl we end up with a bowl full of nothing. Exactly as you would predict.

Now it not clear whether you refer to Sherman which take for granted what Oliver Sacks says or to some religious people.
In both cases these people never got to the third eye or the pineal gland which is the point which lead to spirituality so how it is possible to talk about something that they haven't got a clue about but again you are free to think that the bowl is full of nothing.
Only by practicing you will know or as you may say not know.