You have illustrated the problem with most philosophy. Although your assertion may be absolutely correct, you haven't demonstrated that it is. Please understand that this isn't a criticism of you personally, but of philosophy generally.
Science does have much to say about mind and the world and reality. (Psyche and spirit could be described as part of mind and world and reality). What it says, however, isn't satisfying to mystics, so they reject it out of hand thereby creating a "first reality".
How can such things as "mind," "world," or "reality" be objects for science? How, for instance, can "world" be understood as a concrete object of intention? It's not something you can just lay down on a lab bench and conduct experiments on.
Sure we could say that "Psyche and spirit could be described as part of mind and world and reality." But that would not be a scientific statement. For science deals with direct observables, and neither psyche nor spirit is a direct observable — nor is "mind", "world," or "reality" for that matter. Science cannot be the authority WRT such phenomena, for its method is inapplicable to them.