Is Paganism consistent with Objectivist principles?

I would define "religion" as "a philosophical system which justifies its tenants with respect to the supernatural and which requires faith from its adherents." This definition isn't too far off from those given in Webster's, which include: "the service and worship of God or the supernatural," "commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance," "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith."

So is Objectivism at all compatible with religion? Very simply, no. Faith is a completely invalid means to knowledge and consistently undermines the use of reason. The supernatural is also out of the bounds of Objectivism, since claims about the supernatural generally involve a mind/body dichotomy, primacy of consciousness, and a rejection of the law of identity, not to mention the sheer lack of evidence for the existence of the entities involved.

Are there things that won't be explained by science for thousands of years?

Am I to wipe all away, stamping it under the ugly mark of mysticism?

I have friends that drum after dark, and I walk around the edge of the circle like a pict with designs on my face from the woad, secret at their backs. They don't know I'm there 'til I pull in my breath and shout birdcall, like a predator crow. No one startles at the sound, because the sound is part of the dance that is keeping the fire lit.

I have experiences that bring me joy and enrich my life. As a person who has newly dug deep into the principles developed by Rand and others, I am constantly questioning what parts of my pagan spiritual experiences to let go, and which to keep. It is something I think about quite a lot.

Er . . .help?