You're welcome.
It's interesting that 1) insists you didn't claim anything, then 2) insists that you stand by your claim. ;-) Well, fine, it's not a courtroom, it's a conversation, and I'll try to be useful.
1) It's a natural question. Many people wonder about it, and each new generation will ask it all over again. People who think that because it has already been answered (many times) it should never be asked again need to grow up. They don't have to answer.
My background is physics, and for what it's worth I believe there is no value in combining QM with spiritual systems. I could be wrong, of course, and if you want to pursue it, just do some googling and find some good books, because it has been a popular topic for decades.
Warning: you will find mountains of pseudoscience. If you are most interested in amazing-sounding ideas and not how well supported the ideas are by repeatable measurements, favor books by non-physicists. If you care less about how amazing it sounds and more about what is best supported by repeated measurements, favor books written by people who know QM best: physicists.
2) Sure, be skeptical about everything, though not EQUALLY skeptical of all claims. (Less evidence -> more skepticism.) Real science needs to welcome skepticism (though real, human scientists often don't, unfortunately), while most spiritual practices don't, insisting that you have more faith or "first empty your cup" or otherwise overcome the weakness / character flaw of your skepticism. So, if you want to be skeptical, real science is a better approach for you (and me).
You can claim literally anything, and not all things are true, so you should have an approach to deciding. Mine is the scientific approach; you choose what you like.
You did suggest that we don't know everything about QM or spiritual systems, so maybe there is a connection. While philosophically true, such things are empty conjectures in science. We don't know everything about anything, so that argument supports all claims "A might be related to B", no matter what A and B are. Again, philosophically true but scientifically empty, because science doesn't consider something to be real until you actually observe/measure it. If you speculate about a connection between QM and something else, think of a way to measure it. Until someone does, there is nothing there, scientifically. It doesn't mean there never will be, just nothing so far, and nothing (in my opinion) to suggest there ever will be (again, scientifically).
Also, if you enjoy this type of discussion, you might enjoy reading more about the philosophy of science in general. You'll see more in-depth justifications for much of what I've been saying that aren't restricted to any particular field of science or non-science.