You response is literally, an incoherent list of meaningless statements.

You seem very sure about your lack of sureness.

Hypothesis are marked by the fact that they aren't sure. They are simply speculations, hopefully, but not always based, on relevant evidence and axioms, or at least self consistent postulates. Most are just wild speculation, however.

So, if you reduce the field to only hypotheses that have evidence/adhere to an axiomatic truth or are self consistent with respect to a postulate, the number of hypotheses about the afterlife which could be considered theories is very thin on the ground.

The most significant piece of evidence concerning the afterlife is that every animal, from the most complicated human, to the simplest virus, must have an afterlife; since there is no fundamental, physical difference in the make-up of any particular life form. The number of hypotheses, and therefore theories, which describe why or how inanimate packages of DNA could have an afterlife, are essentially non-existent. Therefore, to invoke an afterlife, we need to propose a mechanism by which some animals are favored, or special, in a non-obvious biological way. There are a number of coherent hypotheses on this, but all must invoke agency; some form of intelligence or force which makes reality appear one way, but actually operate another way.

I would love to hear a theory describing a mechanism which would facilitate an afterlife, as commonly and meaningfully understood, by entirely natural, uncoordinated means. I can think of none which stand up to what little knowledge we have.