yada yada yada, science is not about defending a particular worldview, science is about describing and understanding the universe in a quantitative and usefull manner without special pleading, so you can quit the materialistic/naturalistic strawman you are so keen on erecting and focus on what i actually write.
But expalin this for me; why would you assume that your supernatural cause wouldn't interact with humans?
never did say that. you claim they do, well, good on you, you can make up things and write them with a keyboard! I could get all sciency and wonder if it was actually true (needless to say you have no evidence for anything you have proposed save weird dreams), but i am to tired of reading the word "materialistic" so i wont.
Rather i will just note that I can claim with equal validity "the first cause" (whatever, nevermind we do not know if there was one, etc. etc. etc.) is an "uber-naturalistic" cause (ie. one which need no explanation, not to be confused by your made-up term "supernatural") and only interact with humans by hiding socks and ensuring the marmelade sandwhich land with the wrong side down. oh, and making the universe.
The idea is as silly and as valid as what you propose. it is just a made-up fantasy.