You're essentially claiming that "the map is not the territory," which is correct and, indeed, a fundamental scientific premise.

However, for the models that science provides to be useful, they need to appear, predictably and repeatably, to describe the real world. I don't know what science will look like in ten thousand years (and neither do you) but given that current knowledge of physics, biology, neuroscience, etc do seem true to a reasonable degree, it seems unlikely that the science of the future would somehow discredit modern science entirely, while coincidentally validating a more primitive, shamanic point of view regarding altered states of consciousness.

Accusing me of being ignorant and self-centered in defense of a premise you can't support beyond faith and personal belief seems hypocritical. And as far as imagination goes, accepting altered states at face value is literally the least amount of imagination or intellectual effort one can expend in attempting to understand them.

Once again, assumptions. "A more primitive, shamanic point of view". "faith, personal belief". This is quite the opposite. No one is asking you to believe anything. There is no presumption of human-like deities without a shred I'd evidence. There is just direct, personal observation of phenomena. Choosing the most obvious explanation for it doesn't make it pseudoscientific crankery. It is just a first pass of a hypothesis without much evidence for anything else. And it is no more or less valid than other hypothesis.

The hypothesis you're presenting not the most obvious, Because it requires discrediting existing and established science and starting over from "direct, personal observation of phenomena," as if humanity hadn't already been doing that for centuries, with the cumulative effort of that observation being precisely the process by which we arrived at the conclusions that modern science reaches.

The flat earth may once have been obvious to many people, but it would be absurd to expect anyone to approach any modern discussion about geology from a first principle that all hypotheses regarding the shape of the earth are equally valid, and require that the curvature of the earth be reproven with each discussion. Some hypotheses have evidence to support them, some don't, and there is good reason to assume that the hypotheses which have evidence are more true than those which don't.

Now, mind you, sometimes the hypothesis with evidence is proven false, because the nature of the evidence has been misunderstood. Miasma theory was proven false by germ theory. The luminiferous aether was proven false by quantum mechanics. The solid state universe was proven false by cosmic expansion. Plenty of accepted science has been proven false. Hell, people once believed the only reason the brain existed was to keep the skull nice and round.

But you have to prove the existing paradigm wrong before you assert that another is more correct.

The problem here is that science isn't the only paradigm or even the most relevant paradigm with which to interpret these experiences. That is not to say that scientific method cannot be applied, but there is little in the way of frameworks and tools for exploring altered states of consciousness and subjective experience. There isn't anything even close to a consensus on the nature of consciousness or whether it even exists, let alone the specific phenomena experienced subjectively by consciousness, so trying to cram them into inadequate scientific models will not bring about much insight. This is all addition to the fact that science has really only tackled the capture of knowledge about the objective world, that being the shared world between humans, but is not the best tool for approaching the subjective individual experience. Philosophy and metaphysics are better suited to this, as science says nothing about the "reality" of something.