Did you read
this post? In it, I tried to emphasize the following:
(1) Nonlocality in QM is something which
"can occur in certain experimentally-constructed situations which are not necessarily typical in Nature". Just like in the Heisenberg uncertainty principle (see the OP) when you start dealing with large objects QM effects quickly go away and things become very "local". You could throw two baseballs around at the park for practically eternity, and they will never become entangled or exhibit any significant observable nonlocal effects. That is why when physicists are able to carefully prepare entangled particles and carefully separate them and carefully measure them in a particular way, they get Nobel prizes for it. But Chopra et al. like to suggest, misleadingly, that nonlocality is something which occurs all the time in Nature, at all size scales, and has significant effects at the level of entire human brains and our daily experience. Goswami thinks if two people meditate together in a room, they become telepathically "entangled" and can subsequently affect each other's minds from a great distance.
(2) Nonlocality as a concept was its biggest and strongest in classical "clockwork" physics before Einstein, and became much weaker and smaller as demonstrated in QM; but Chopra et al. want to turn all this on its head. They think if something is "quantum" then that is a license to extrapolate anything they please from it. Furthermore, they want to (incorrectly) imply that nonlocality as a concept was incompatible with pre-Einstein classical physics, which they view as the peak of reductionism/materialism.
(3) Intuition, contrary to the assertions of Godnotgod, plays a mixed role in physics. Sometimes the correct answer is intuitive, other times the correct answer is counter-intuitive. But the correct answers ALWAYS must be logical and must agree with experiment. Logic and evidence thus play a more decisive role than intuitive guessing.