According to Thomistic view, as it is shown here, soul is immortal, and body will be resurrected:

does it? :smile:

no, talking about Chesterton, he wrote fiction literature, personification is a term from literature theory here, not from philosophy.

well, real people have bodies also :nerd: .

GK Chesterton is not conventional philosopher/theologian, but did apologetic work for Catholicism and Christianity in general. He was famous as author of paradoxical detective stories and other books. I would say (roughly) that he created characters obsessed with ideas or ideologies(like, character is personification of idea). And then he shows how true religious worldview is the best way of thinking. Like in popular stories about Father Brown (who plays role of detective). Because it is like his faith make him think better than a crime does).

here are some of my thoughts, possible way of thinking:
Short answer:
Because moral (in some meaning) is not real, there is no absolutely wrong way to live, just relatively: in relation to something that you can call real (society, God or idea of God, or some teaching, or human: your leader or beloved wife). But in relation, especially if it is strong (like love), you get wrongness and rightness, maybe even in absolute forms. It sounds paradoxical, but it is true.
Interesting idea (a bit utopian, too ideal, perhaps) is deeply personal, clear moral codex. Like you can go from your PC to any website, but you need own operating system and software on PC.
Moral is (a bit roughly) an image in our minds (or souls) and sources of information. It is virtual thing, but it does not mean we should reject it, as we do not reject virtual reality and gadgets totally.

Long answer:
Your assumption is known (in philosophy) as moral relativism. Surely, it is criticised by traditional or religious worldview. I have strong interest in Catholicism. My position for your question is (maybe) not well articulated, but, roughly speaking, I am against your philosophical position. So I want to make good argument. Here what I came up with.
We want to be masters of our destiny. Relativism gives us situational ethics, so we have more freedom, more power, more opportunities. More fun. Good. We are flexible.
Pitfalls: when you are VIP (or just in subjectively important situation), you're not prepared to make fast and smart decisions. Because you have no theoretical ideal, only the situation and unarticulated properly desires. Bad.
Opposite to moral relativism is moral absolutism. Typical for closed societies. Bad.
Solution should be found in between.
Even if you have wrong (let's hope, only for some degree) ideal (codex of values), you can correct it later. (I'm inspired by J Peterson).
But what about collective moral? We may assume that modern society does not share one common moral. If it causes problems, we should seek for first principles, core ideas, values.
We cannot push our moral codex into others but we can help to open their own codexes and things that are common. Make great social contract again.
Ten Commandments are good starting point imho, as tested basis, to reflect. Using dialogue, we will find reflection of our tradition in another one and vice versa, as it was in history. But we get properly these basic principles.
Things like that can protect and develop beautiful diversity and multiculturalism. Here is smart quote: "in necessary things unity; in uncertain things liberty; in all things charity".

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_necessariis_unitas,_in_dubiis_libertas,_in_omnibus_caritas

So, moral relativism (which was, i tend to believe, your assumption) is wrong. It is like Scilla, Haribda is authoritarism, finding path and travelling between is the key.

How I see cosmogony (simplified):
Three miracles:
1. Birth of Universe.
2. Birth of Life.
3. Birth of Consciousness ("in flesh", I do not tell about transcendent God here).
Each of these miracles was never done by human. But human participated in co-creating. It's like participation in cosmic evolution.

So, we cannot create Universe: creation is by definition - from nothing (impossible, if you think in conventional way, at least ). We can change Universe.
Life: we can participate in creation, we can change Life(s). Assumption: a biological organism is wonderful construction of non-biological elements. Consequence: life is problem if construction, human has potential to build alive creature from "dust". With scientific and technical progress. Some day. Maybe, after thousands of years after today. But possible.
Consciousness: as we know it, it is part of bio-organism. But what is a definition of consciousness as an essence? What if we meet non-carbon based life form, developed, conscious life? Maybe, conscious is a question of some qualities (or structure) which can be achieved with computer constructing in easier way than creating virus?

The 2nd assumption: person X is objective in his/her perception and judgement. Is it even possible? Idk.
My answer to your interesting topic is: yes, AI can successfully imitate abnormal person. And deceive some people. We can just look at modern chatbots, those of them which use neural networks and are created by rich corporations. However, maybe science (computer science, psychology etc.) can create something like criteria for person X to recognize but with some probability who is this weird companion.
I say that it can be (and should) viewed as question of probability. Definitely no guarantee for 100% result.

but probably it is uncommon belief, because others did not get this kind of personal revelation. So your argumentation cannot be accepted until others get such experience or you have reputation of authority for them.
I have mystical insights too. But your argumentation tends to provoke scepticism of so called modern people imho. It is ok, BUT then we cannot have meaningful dialogue and our discourse is dead by definition.
So, I dare to state from my POV that your position is weak and unmature.

that sounds like your personal belief, isn't it?