Those who were interested in my earlier post about NOMA are invited to read the modified version of
http://pages.csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/theo/atheist.html
The last sentence of this short essay is: “Unresolved conflicts in debates about God usually result from absence of agreements on what the word God stands for."
You don’t cover much about “what God stands for”, so I can’t say much on that. You do talk about NOMA.
I have no idea what you mean by “methods of validation" in religion. Holy texts are the thoughts of people who did not use or did not have better methods of validation available. Some of them were doing the best they could with what they had, and some of them were deliberately manipulating others. We know this manipulation goes on now and I see no reason to call it anything else. That would be an area where science or secular morality, or just plain common sense says anyone should be able to “overlap”.
This statement by you would be a good example of a religious statement that is attempting to overlap into science: “Such superstructure does exist; most people in the world are believers." I assume you are using the fact that there are many believers to make the case that spiritual superstructure exists. This would be a “different method of validation". Unfortunately for you, in this case, “different" means, a method that doesn’t work.
The only way I can accept “non-overlapping" is something like this; If science has an opinion on something, then consider what it says as well as the degree of confidence that it has on that thing. If religion has something else to say about it, consider that it is based merely on conjecture, the level of confidence can only come from personal feelings. If there is something that science has not yet been able to establish, then conjecture is not only allowed, it is welcomed. Where religion needs to learn to not “overlap" is that it cannot demand science take some action or teach that conjecture and feelings are equal to evidence.