I am all for the process of rigorous scientific proof, but the harshness of your criticism seems out of whack considering Mr. Chopra’s article doesn’t claim to provide scientific proof of YOUR definition of an afterlife. It seems you have your own strict definition of the phrase “eternity of life” which you conveniently failed to reveal in your comments; and that anyone or any point of view that does not adhere to your definition deserves ad hominem dismissal.
I read this article as simply suggesting in a very easy going way that if we don’t limit our definition of what life is to the ego, then a universe imbued with life has life which is just as eternal as the universe itself. This is a simple observation, admittedly based upon the premise that the universe is indeed imbued with life. YOU may not agree with that premise, but then there are plenty of very rigorous scientists who do; and so therefore I found your comments to be crass.