These are some admiral mystical principles and sentiments. The weak point seems to me the running together of epistemology and metaphysics in your first section. From your statements that “consciousness is the necessary precondition for any perception of reality,” or that “Consciousness must exist before we can make any estimation of reality. We can only know everything else in relation to consciousness,” it doesn’t follow that “This is just another way of saying consciousness is the substance of reality.”

You’ve gone there from epistemology to metaphysics in one fell swoop, which is to say you’ve presupposed rather than demonstrated that to be is to be perceived (or estimated or known). It’s logically and physically possible for matter, energy, and a natural universe to exist without the evolution of life.

What follows, rather, is that there would be no perception, description, or knowledge of things without life and consciousness, but fundamental reality could be perfectly inhuman and indifferent to life. For that reason, I prefer cosmicist pantheism to idealistic mysticism. The latter is too anthropocentric, and it has an awkward relationship to science. But this kind of mysticism is still superior to exoteric theism, in my view (and seemingly in yours too, judging from your recent criticisms of literalistic Christianity).

Also, there are "hard problems" for any metaphysical or cosmological account, including naturalism and idealistic mysticism.