The research is entirely a product of science.
The philosophy of science, requires any subject to be investigated, to be outside the investigator while observed. We need a third person approach, for a common observation ground for all scientists, for verification. We cannot see the inside of other people to verify what was internally observed by the subject. Science needs data everyone can see and agree. We can only agree on output affects, in the third person, which leaves out internal consciousness data, you cannot see from the outside. We do not get a full picture of consciousness reality based on this philosophy.
If one is dealing with consciousness phenomena in a valid scientific way, you cannot include internal data of others, that you cannot see, verify, and therefore cannot reproduce. One cannot reproduce a dream of another person, like you can their experiments. Therefore, we end up leaving out data by default. In other words, if someone came up with a good experimental design, you can copy that, but if you ask them how they ever thought to do it that way, they can tell you anything and how would know the difference? They can see your design via your paper.
I suppose a group researchers could plant the same subliminal data and suggestions on different subjects and see similar output affects, since we all have human brains and expect similar output results. You can black box that much. But again, there will still be missing data from the inside of each subject, that will not be allowed in any published paper, even if totally objective in terms of the source. Nobody can verify it, even if true, so it is not included and the study is made incomplete, but still valid science.
The idea of nonlocal consciousness assumes we ca observe a secondary source, from the third person since, it is out there, somewhere. If it is over there for me it will also be over there for you. This is allowable in science. However, saying it is part of us, in the first person, is not acceptable. Scientists cannot go there, and if they do, they risk being labeled as a tin foil hat wearing kook. You can discuss patients but your own data is not allowed.
If I said there is a ghost in my house, this is more socially acceptable than me saying my unconscious mind is projecting a ghost into my house. The former sounds like it is subject to third person para-science, while the latter sound like you need to be medicated. There is a taboo due to the collective fear of going insane or being possessed.
If it is a ghost, I can move, and it will stay where it belongs. But if I comes from within me, I can move and it may follow me no matter where I go. This is labele by scary names like demon possession or psychosis. We are taught there is only the outside, even though much of our life is spent judging things by how it makes us feel on the inside.