What exactly is awareness then, can we measure awareness on some kind of physical chart or barometer, can we capture a physical sample of awareness and store it in a jar?
You asking the question is awareness. A rock does not ask whether we can measure awareness. You have some measure of ability to perceive what I've written, to reflect on it, and to craft a response to that. That's it.
You can measure awareness subjectively, because it's a subjective phenomenon. Just like you can measure sight subjectively, even though you can't make a machine that measures sight nor can you capture sight in a jar.
Your view of this is shockingly archaic for someone that is in the same breath arguing for the existence of souls.
I defined soul or consciousness, whatever you want to call it as that something that is unseeable and immaterial, yet we all know it's very much real as we all have it or rather are it at the deepest level of ourselves behind all the human layers.
If it's unseeable and immaterial, that tells me nothing about what it is, only what it is not. There are many, many things that are unseeable and immaterial, yet we know that they exist.
And as for "we all know it's very much real", no, I don't think we do. That's just a cop-out to avoid having to actually explain. Unless you're saying the soul and consciousness are identical, in which case that raises some pretty big questions.
We're not even conscious the whole time we're alive. If your consciousness is your soul, what happens to it when you're knocked out or asleep? If you get brain damage that alters your personality, is your soul also changed or is it immutable? These questions have answers and/or can be investigated when talking purely about consciousness, but are completely unanswerable when you're talking about a "soul".
And then we get into the fact that the soul generally gets labelled with some other properties, like being eternal, or containing a person's identity or memories which are NOT compatible with consciousness. So why would you use the word "soul", with all the implied baggage that it carries, instead of consciousness if that's what you meant?
Is it just because you're trying to sneak the concept of a soul in riding on the coat-tails of a completely different phenomenon?
The best I could come up with words is to say that it's just pure energy, the highest form of energy that there is (since it's literally beyond and prior to anything else, hence you can't even touch or measure it in any physical manner) and that it is reality in the truest sense. I say this because it truly is the only thing that you can ever be sure is truly real, that being your own consciousness or awareness.
Do you know what energy is? Because from this I don't think you do. It sounds awfully like you're using it in a similar way to hippies, which is sort of interesting.
There aren't higher and lower forms of energy, at least not in the way normal people use that word. Nor is there "pure" and "impure" energy. So you're going to have to explain what the "energy" you're talking about is - what's a "highest form" of energy, what lower forms of energy are and how they differ.
Then we get back into you attempting to equate the soul and consciousness again. Why? Are they the same or not? They're not the same in common English usage, they're not even particularly similar in meaning. If the "soul" was only your awareness, then there would be no discussion.
But you know that's not what "soul" means, "soul" has a whole bunch of other properties tacked onto it. Nobody talks about their consciousness going to heaven or hell, that's purely for souls. Nobody talks about their consciousness being divinely judged, that's for souls.
You don't need any scientific investigation to know that it's real, just simply sit still and be with nothing but your own consciousness and the fact will become very much undeniable to you.
You could have just written this as "shut up and accept that I'm right", you know.
We understand that you have no curiosity about yourself or the world you're in. But not everyone is like you. No facts will become undeniable to me simply by sitting and doing nothing, waiting for something that you cannot describe. How would I know when I've experienced my soul if you can't tell me anything about it? How would I know what I'm experiencing is not just an itchy bum and heartburn?
There have been some very interesting psychological experiments in conformity. In a group setting, people will often deny their own experiences in order to fit in with the group. If everyone else in the group says that they definitely experience their soul, then it would not be unusual for another person to agree regardless of if they experience anything or not.
They might even convince themselves that some part of what they feel normally must be what other people are feeling too. Or they might convince themselves that they're feeling something despite being completely unable to describe it in any way. Humans are ultimately social animals, and we will go to great lengths to fit in as well as to convince ourselves that our perceptions and actions are rational and true.
However, all of that gets entirely in the way of learning anything new. If you want to learn or understand, thinking in this way is a disadvantage. Wanting to understanding and looking for evidence is not a sin, it is the sign of someone seeking truth. And not "truth" in the biblical sense of a bunch of "facts" that you must accept in order to be a part of the church, actual truth.