Oh dear, oh dear. We're back to the intellectually incoherent "you can't prove my god doesn't exist so therefore there's a very good chance it does" argument. This sort of thing is advanced by people who don't actually have any relevant domain knowledge of the problem. It's the equivalent of saying "as I personally have absolutely no clue about neuroscience, it therefore follows that neuroscience can't explain X."

Here is the problem with the concept of soul: there is precisely no evidence whatsoever to support such a contention, nor is there any need to invoke such a concept in order to explain actual real-world phenomenon. As Truzzi pointed out, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." Without empirical evidence there is no point going off down some rathole - the number of such possible dead-ends is limitless and we all have far better things to do with our time, especially if the purported "explanation" is intellectually incoherent and explains nothing whatsoever except the writer's lack of understanding.

So until someone presents empirical evidence of the existence of a "soul" or there is an overwhelming compelling need to invoke such a thing to explain an otherwise truly inexplicable empirically observed phenomenon, we can simply ignore any babbling about such things, because they the babble is as valid as any other set of unsupported contentions: e.g. not valid in any meaningful way whatsoever.