As a competent physicist, his hypothethis should be evaluated purely on its own merits. Arguement from authority should have no place in science. Any a priori prejudice against a scientist's scientific papers because he may express seemingly wacko religious philosophical precepts should also have no place. It would be a sad day when a scientist's religious and philosophical beliefs that fail to conform with secular humanism prejudice an idea from consideration.

There may well be scientific flaws in his proposed experiment. That's why he published the concept, for peer review. I would expect it to be critiqued, and if in the view of those competent in the field it has merit, the experiment should be simple enough to run.

The whole 'philosophical' topic of Bohr's standard Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics and contending models like Hugh Everett's 'Many Worlds' is anathema to many physicists. Probably because heretofore the concepts were not falsifiable and therefore weren't science - they were philosophy. Now possibly a falsifiable experiment may be viable. If so, talk about expanding the boundaries of science!