Far from suspecting there’s a theory of everything, I’m inclined to the cosmicist, Lovecraftian, mysterian view that the whole of the universe may be too big a mystery to be understood by primates like us. (See the first link below, for example.) But there’s a big difference between positing a great mystery and mistaking that appeal for an explanation or a solution. Supernaturalism wouldn’t explain consciousness. You don’t explain one mystery by positing a bigger one.
You say “ESP has been proved scientifically beyond reasonable doubt,” but Radin’s book has been subject to lots of criticism (see the second link below for a chapter-by-chapter critique). The Wikipedia page says, “Radin's ideas and work have been criticized by scientists and philosophers skeptical of paranormal claims. The review of Radin's first book, The Conscious Universe, that appeared in Nature charged that Radin ignored the known hoaxes in the field, made statistical errors and ignored plausible non-paranormal explanations for parapsychological data.” The page cites the link below, pointing out “how Radin had not cited the skeptical literature on the subject of parapsychology” and how ‘Radin had ignored “the many hoaxes and frauds that dot the landscape in the history of psi research.”’
Science does support itself, because science is founded on skepticism and opposition to dogma, and is therefore self-correcting. The scientific methods are about subjecting hypotheses to rigorous doubts and tests. I know all about the sociological and philosophical criticisms of science. In absolute terms, science is flawed (instrumental, politically tainted, conservative), but compared to the other potential sources of empirical knowledge we know of, science is obviously more effective. I’m not saying we should commit to this or that scientific model or rule out this or that paranormal phenomenon. I’m interested in the broad philosophical upshot of scientific knowledge as a whole.