It's probably a good idea for anyone to check themselves every now and then by playing Angel's Advocate just as much as they might play Devil's Advocate, but I don't think rejecting his premises out of hand with a drive-by diagnosis is all that helpful.
I had a stretch of a year or so a decade ago where I was going through something very similar, down to the belief a hacker group was targeting my WiFi network despite the great lengths I was going to secure it during the setup process inside an RF shielded area, yet they still kept "getting in" somehow... so I recognize the signs.
If OP can re-read their comment later on in a different mindset, they may start to notice things that felt so certain at the time don't actually add up logically in retrospect, that's how I ended up breaking out of it eventually.
Given the complexity of modern 802.11 protocols and the prevalence of WiFi radios in devices of all kinds, I find it well within the realm of possibilities for anyone to observe 802.11 traffic that is sufficiently ambiguous to create the confidence necessary to be a mentally workable substitute for evidence of a targeted attack. There may be a lot of evidence that could be found to refute that very same premise, though, if one knows what to look for.