You could be right.
But what makes it so necessary to postulate the existence of a definable object called a "soul," if we can explain behavior on a more observable level and the construct of a soul seems superfluous?
To me, that's the large issue: The necessity of having a soul at all to explain anything only exists because of preconceived "religious" beliefs. To make the theology (or whatever spiritual framework one is inclined to) work, suddenly we need to toss in the construct of a soul. We want it to be true to fit our ideas, so we develop some rationale to explain it.
The existence of the soul isn't really derived from real-live evidence, which is why people still argue about whether or not it exists.
And it's just funny because the early Jews from which Judeo-Christian beliefs [for a soul] spawn from seemed to view this physical, current life as the "spiritual reality." There was no separate soul from the body; the body WAS the person.
Which is why the clean/unclean laws were SO large to them, and sins against the body were BIG sins (no tattoos, no mutilation, no sexual promiscuities, no cross-gender behavior, etc.). Because the body WAS the person. Sinners had their bodies routinely violated; sinners and the damned often had their bodies left out to rot or be eaten by birds and jackals and whatnot. Physical death was the literal punishment for sin; it was damnation.
When you died, your body was interred into "the grave [Sheol]," which was another way of saying the Underworld. That body was you. And the Jews believed that God would one day restore life TO that body -- that JHVH would resurrect the dead who were faithful while the unfaithful were left dead, rotted, in their graves.
(This is the holdover in Christian theology... that the resurrection of the BODY is essential, that we have bodies at ALL even if we want to view ourselves as having "souls" per se. We aren't "souls," our bodies are us.)