I guess I have to call you on your BS once again.
1. "Light, Enlightenment, and Vibration"? You never even explained what this meant.
2. Invalid use of "Toroidial Field". Torroidial Fields refer to the magnetic field of the Earth, not the human body. The overall human magnetic field is effectively ZERO, as it is measured in pico-teslas. The magnetic field of the human body is so low that even the most powerful receivers can't pick it up. That means that the field is weak, not some exception to physics. ECGs and EKGs are hooked up to the skin directly because the field is so faint.
3. The names ancient cultures gave to Gods does NOT mean light OR cosmic conciousness. Jehova is not used in standard Hebrew, Allah comes from the Arabic word elaha meaning "the only one to be worshiped", and Brahma means "greatness". You ignored the actual meaning of the words and you fabricated a false-truth for the convenience of making an argument.
4. Your guest made the assumption is made that the soul is made of energy or "Source Energy" and stated this was related to the vibrations of light. Vibrations of light are something that can be measured. "Source Energy" is not real, cannot be measured, has not been measured, and therefor can have no relation to an observable force. What you propose is not science, it is belief in your idea without a shred of evidence to support it.
5. "We all may be manifested in a dense physical way, but our truer selves are light beings. Based on the thoughts that we hold in our minds, our day to day choices, and the degree that we limit ourselves to illusion instead of awareness, we either prevent or allow ourselves from becoming a living embodiment of the light being that we are." ---- The first sentence is actually true, if you consider matter as a form of light, but the light you insinuate is an alternative organism that you still have not proven to exist. You have a habit of making points and then never elaborating on them. You make statements, say they are all going to be connected soon, and continue to make assumption after assumption after assumption without ever giving a shred of evidence to support your claims.
These faults are just within the first 2 minutes of the video, the entire presentation is full of assumptions made with no supporting data.
THERE IS NO SCIENCE WITHOUT DATA. You have not presented any data and therefor are not a credible source of information.
You are just another Jean-Paul Marat trying to push pseudo-science as real science.