So it is not a "physical" experience, nor is it there a literal physical change, but it is a spiritual event. IOW while the participant is literally consuming the body and blood of Christ, the event occurs on a spiritual level and not on a physical level?
Is that right?
Then why the insistence on a "Physical presence" when the fact is that there really is no literal "physical presence" but merely the literal "actual" presence.
If, indeed, there was a literal "physical presence" then the elements would be subject to physical scientific testing and confirmation. DNA evidence would be available in every empty cup. The fact that they are not so subject to physical testing seems to prove conclusively (at least on a physcial level) that the change is not physical.
You don't understand transubstantiation. Go read the article I provided you. It answers your question.
The term "physical" is a bit of a problem. Modern science usually claims that a "physical change" is one that is physically observable. If that's your definition of "physical change," then we don't claim that transubstantiation is a "physical change".
*However*, there is also nothing physically observable about a Galilean carpenter preaching on a hilltop that would cause you to conclude that he's God the Son incarnate in human flesh, and not just a Galilean carpenter. Yet, when Mary carried him as a baby, she literally, physically, carried her God around in her hands. (That's essentially a quotation from Mr. Luther, if you're interested.)
So -- if you're an orthodox Christian -- you already have to reject the materialist supposition that a physically observable change or quality is the only kind that matters.