So that's what I mean: you'd have a lot to establish if you have to disprove scientific theories to make your philosophy work. I start with science and with naturalism because they support themselves.
But I agree that science doesn't answer all meaningful questions. Nevertheless, your religious view might be in danger of subscribing to a god of the gaps. I don't think supernaturalism can "solve" anything, because it "explains" only by positing a great mystery. That's a pseudoexplanation.
Nikolai Berdyaev might be closer to an existential Gnostic. But "existentialism" is as wishy-washy a term as "Gnosticism." I'm comparing only some of the main ideas which are still relevant despite the existential movement having fallen out of fashion decades ago.