But doesn't that depend on how one defines what a soul is? We should first agree on what a soul is before we start to deny or believe in our own idea of what something is which might be completely different to reality..
And isn't it dangerous to rule stuff out just because there's no proof? I'm not a scientist but isn't having an open mind the only way science can expand? Adamant denial without proof is just as dangerous as adamant belief without proof. You hypothesise that something is true and then you go and prove it. Maybe I mistook what you meant though.
Anyway isn't this topic getting derailed? I for one would like to hear about this 'dream of light' the OP mentioned. Sounds interesting!