Yes your article title talks about Bernardo Kastrup, but many aspects of your article seem more generalised rhetorical questioning to the audience, and you go between this general questioning and critiques of Kastrup.

For example you say:

"Yet there’s still no reason to believe that the afterlife and many other possibilities are actually real or that the claims about them are true. In other words, there’s often no reason to take them seriously.

In any case, there are literally infinite other possibilities we could — or even should — also consider. But we can’t because we haven’t got the time. And, in most cases, there is no reason why we should anyway.

Ironically, many people do actually believe that they know (if only in a non-strict, non-epistemological sense) about the afterlife. Indeed that’s why they frequently talk about it. In other words, such people do not believe that the afterlife is beyond what we can know.

Of course some people also claim to be (as already stated) “open-minded” about the afterlife. Yet when you read just a couple of their comments, you quickly realise that they do believe in the afterlife. Indeed they seem to believe that they know it exists.

So all this has very little to do with being open-minded.

In any case, it is true that there are obviously many things that we don’t know. And?

Now, if someone says “your consciousness survives” in the afterlife, then what is it that survives?"

This entire quote is not Kastrup specific and was the aspect of your article I was responding to with my comment.

You then say:

"Again, what is this consciousness which survives and why is it a person’s consciousness rather than some abstract or vague input into a “space-time storage bank” (or into Cosmic Consciousness)? How is some individual human person (who had a physical body and brain) still in the universe when he or she has no body and brain? What is left after death? And why is what is left — if anything — still deemed to be “your consciousness” or a human person? Moreover, why is what “survives” death deemed to be exactly the same person (psychologically speaking) than the person who existed when embedded in a particular brain and who had a particular body? What provides this continuity between the person with a body/brain and this “consciousness” in the Cosmos?"

My comment was a response to these quotes rather than to your Kastrup specific criticisms because I don't know much about Kastrup and so I don't know how valid your criticisms of him are. However I can respond to your more general questions about "what is left after death", "what is the continuity between a person with a body/brain and a consciousness in the Cosmos" which is exactly what my comment did.