The holographic paradigm may be a convenient way to cloak mystical metaphysics in the robe of science, but at the end of the day the paradigm breaks down. For starters, there is no such thing as a tangible hologram. If there was, Disney would be right on top of the technology. Bottom line: the universe is not a hologram. Parts of it may be like a hologram, while other parts may be like a fruit sherbet. Similies and metaphors are not identities.
The article you linked to also made an appeal to the popular understanding of the term "maya" - that reality is illusory. The late Sufi teacher Idries Shah explained that this is a misunderstanding of the original story. It might be more accurate to say that reality is sometimes misunderstood - not that it is a complete illusion (something that is not there at all.)
From a pragmatic perspective, how would the belief that the universe is a hologram benefit the believer?
Would she find "truer" holographic love in a holographic universe?
Would he find it easier to shed those last 15 holographic pounds and become a genuine holo-hunk on "The Holographic Diet"?
Would his singing voice improve so that he would become the next holographic American Idol?
Would her holographic stock market portfolio outperform the mundane market in general?
Would he find a holographic cure for cancer?
Would she invent the first holographic ansible, or a hollographic interocitor?(The andible and interocitor are both science fiction communication devices.)
Whether the ghosts are mystical, metaphysical or holographic, they're not really real.
