A follow up from this question: is materialism a self refuting position
Does physicalism include epistemological principles that make it impossible to disprove by its own standard ?
If I am a physicalist, it should follow that I accept only knowledge based on physical evidence. It would not make sense to accept personal testimony about spiritual illumination, perceptions of ghost or near death experience because it can be dissmissed as hallucination. Personal testimony is not reliable in a physicalist worldview.
Physical, measurable evidence is just more proof that the thing measured is part of the physical world. For example if one takes a picture of a ghost or manage to get a physical track of a spiritual event, say a monk reaching nirvana, a physicalist can dissmiss it as a proof that if ghosts emit physical light they must be physical in nature, and if nirvana is measurable it must have a physical explanation.
Pointing at phenomenons that current physics knowledge can't explain can rightfully be dismissed as a "God of the gaps" fallacy. There is a lot we did not understand in the past that turned out to have physical explanation.
So any evidence a dualist or idealist can produce is either invalid by the standards of physicalism or can be returned as more evidence that physicalism is true. It looks to me like a "Heads I win, Tails you lose" kind of game, which paradoxicaly makes it a position difficult to defend, or at least to convince opponents.
Has this problem been discussed in the literature, or have philosophers proposed a test for physicalism in the form of "such or such would convince me that there is something beyond physical reality" ?