Unfortunately you can't trust any of the conclusions your brain comes up with. You have to check them against reality first. And in the case of the study of consciousness, you can't use the thing you are studying to study it. The observations of any effects and occurrences will be affected by those effects and occurrences, and your observations will also affect those effects and occurrences. there's a feedback there that obliterates the usefulness of your results. That's why neurologists and psychologists have to use other people as their subjects, not themselves.
You are a pretensious one, aren't you? What you're doing isn't particularly rare or special. Plenty of artists before you have taken advantage of the strangeness of their idle thoughts for inspiration. You're talking about what amounts to glorified daydreaming as a thing greater than science, and it just isn't. It is merely another quirk of the organic computer we call the human brain.
Speaking of science:
". . . anybody can say religion is wrong but nobody can replace it with an explanation of consciousness. "
Oh, but I can. It's perfectly clear to me that consciousness is simply a function of the brain, caused by electrical impulses firing down neurons and the exchange of hormones and other chemicals. We can observe this with a simple CAT scan. The activity in the brain varies in both intensity and location depending on the person's state of consciousness. A neurologist could look at the CAT scan and tell whether the person was afraid, angry, asleep, wide awake, high on drugs, or dead, and in death, all brain activity ceases.
I don't think that's a particularly clever observation, either. Anybody could figure this stuff out, but instead, pretensious people like you prefer to believe that their brains are actually phenomenal, transcendant engines of cosmic discovery, instead of just organic computers. I find such a sentiment both apallingly arrogant and disturbing.