How would you describe a supernaturalist research approach? Of course you wouldn't.
Magick = supernatural = mysterianism.
I mean only one point by that thought. Idealism is the real issue at hand, not the supernatural. There is no 'there' there though. No content, all form. I did get a 'D' in humanities btw!
Yes,

we do not have to define something as supernatural in order to study it outside the context of monism. That is just dumb. To define it as 'supernatural' is an
a priori trick one uses to obfuscate any alternative from being studied. This is a process called subception. In fact we should not ethically designate it as 'supernatural' at all (as you cite). (But they are 'sincere' he feigns objectivity

)....
The task at hand is very straightforward (not 'simple') - It is a white crow falsification. Falsify monism (deduction). And that can be done.
Anyone who presents the argument as more complicated than that is conducting the pseudoscience of Methodical Deescalation.
Methodical Deescalation
/philosophy : pseudoscience : inadequate inference method/ : employing abductive inference in lieu of inductive inference when inductive inference could have, and under the scientific method should have, been employed. In similar fashion employing inductive inference in lieu of deductive inference when deductive inference could have, and under the scientific method should have, been employed.
One of the hallmarks of skepticism is grasping the distinction between a ‘consilience of inductions’ and a ‘convergence of deductions’. All things being equal, a convergence of deductions is superior to a consilience of inductions. When science employs a consilience of inductions, when a convergence of deductions was available, yet was not pursued – then we have an ethical dilemma called Methodical Deescalation.