I
There is a persistently fascinating trope in fantasy and occultic themed media where "spirits", whether ghosts, souls, Gods, etc, are seen as still mortal in some sense, even if this mortality is not like our own. They have bodies, even if not "physical", and these can, under certain circumstances, lose their integrity. Now, this is perhaps incredulous for some, but for me it highlights some rather important insights about the nature of those kinds of bodies in actual religious traditions. Given that the "supernatural" isn't a category prior to a particular modern paradigm, it's a bit hard to wrap our heads around the concept of non-material bodies (material in the mundane sense). However, that's not my concern here. My concern is the way even these bodies could indeed be "left behind". When a late antique Neoplatonist describes the ascent of a soul as the shedding of the various "pneumatic" bodies, he is in some sense describing the death of higher entities, now inaccessible to whatever "plane" they just left. In short, these media do touch on a real possibility in some ontologies. Seeing, for instance, anime as doing Metaphysics is not a common idea, but from my experience, they do better Metaphysics than many people seem to realize.
II
Corbin was wrong about the Henads, but it's still refreshing to see Muslims at least engage with the idea and the problem. The usual Perennialist attempts to sublimate Polytheism into an (at best) "paradoxical" monotheism fails because it undermines the Polytheism itself by collapsing monism into theology. I think this provides a handy definition of "Monotheism" in the way I'd like to oppose. First, we have to resist the straight forward identification of Monotheism and non-dualism, as well as monotheism and monism. The collapse of these categories is how Classical Theism hijacks anything outside its Tradition for its rhetoric, hence, for instance, the privileging of Advaita, usually Shankarite Advaita, as superior to other Hindu philosophies on the basis of a similarity with certain classical theisms. I have nothing against Advaita though. Another example is Aristotle. It's perhaps safe to say Aristotle was a monist, but it would be wrong to say he was a Monotheist.
There is a sliding scale, a family resemblance perhaps, for monotheisms. On one side, there are the blatant onto-theologies. The Monad is equated with the God, all others collapse in his simplicity. This is not, again, a rebuttal of monism, but of a monism that equates formal metaphysical structures enunciated in a philosophical school with ultimate and exclusive theology. That is the family resemblance that ties the concept of "Monotheism" loosely together. On the other side of this family is the strong "negative theology" traditions. I tend to find these traditions very persuasive on some points, but not on others. Here, just as before, formal metaphysical structures are collapsed and fused into an ultimate theology, where theology becomes ontology as such. In this case, it is the Platonic principle of monad and manifold applied to the first principle as "the One" and "ones" that is made a theology. As a result, rather than a purely formal inquiry into unity, we have an inquiry into the apophatic God, or rather the former as the latter, which inevitably tries to subsume everything particular into its reified universality. In this case, the divine entity is not accessible as an object, but that hardly takes away its supreme totalization, even if attempts to qualify this ends up in paradox (for me, plain contradiction). Indeed, the Apophatic God is indistinguishable from a Henad properly speaking, but it is often denied that it is a Henad, except as a "Henad of henads", where the many henads are reduced to simply superlative beings, or supraessential unities that are still, somehow, under the logic of essence.
The usual rebuttal is that the Apophatic God doesn't have the quality of being One given to it as do unified things, and so cannot be part of a multiplicity; but then, neither do the Henads have this sort of unity given to them (Prop. 119), and yet they are a multiplicity. It's safe to say that Classical Theism cannot seem to conceive of positive multiplicity. It cannot let go of the unit into infinity, to paraphrase Plato.
III
"Miracles" in the new testament are often described in a mythical context, to evoke certain imagery in myths familiar to the audience. I think this is why miracles are such a hard category for many people.
In Platonism, Myth is an ontological category. Myth describes cosmogony. Dionysos' dismemberment is him bringing forth the cosmos according to some particular ontological scheme. Zeus' "promiscuity" is the liberal gift of Noetic Intelligibility by the Demiurge. Hera's wrath is the refinement of those who gain such gifts. YHWH's slaying of the Dragon is the first act of cosmogony as demarcation.
Miracles are in this sense mini-cosmogonies. It's the concrete meaning of the world being "open to spirit". It is the world seen and experienced in the ontology of myth, of spirits working, creating worlds. This is why the science primarily used for explaining miracles is theology, not physics.
IV
That the bread is the symbol of the body does not negate the fact that it is the body. The issue is that Christianity has always had a materialist streak that tries to negate the mythical.
V
I think my grief about Christianity is that there is so much real and positive theology in there and so much more to come from a Christocentric framework. But the framework is still so tied to a violent exclusivism (even in its many "progressive" or "inclusivist" strains) that it might not be worth it to identify with such.
VI
I have a recently kindled fascination with materialist theisms, ancient stoicisms and epicureanisms especially. But I also would like to know and see the possibility of a modern iteration with so called "modern science". There is perhaps a clear parallel with Stoicism in the "big bang" and similar models. With an appropriate epistemology and creativity, we could see such traditions flourish again. I could even see new "AI" religions move in that direction, if they can get out of the death trap ideology it is still majorly tied to. I think Mormon materialists are fascinating, in this regard.
VII
There is a paper to be written on the presence of "money" in physical theory. The basic idea is pretty simple, (political and economic) power as an analogue of physical energy, money as the "lightest" medium of exchange for this power. Money is "massless", yet those who the value associated with it have so much "mass", if you get my drift.