The answer to this question would seem to be embedded/embodied in “I”. “I” out in a particular world understood from a particular point of view. In the manner in which I have come to understand the meaning of dasein.
The “spiritual life” has never really been pinned down though. We come into this world with a set of biological imperatives. And these inherent, congenital capacities are then shaped and molded in a particular community shaped and molded in a particular historical and cultural context.
We invent a word like “spiritual” in order to encompass a frame of mind that revolves around all that comes after our basic needs are met.
We are, after all, that species of animal able to ask questions that delve into the very nature of “existence” and “reality” itself. Why does anything exist at all? Why this existence and not another? And, in asking these questions, our minds/brains are then able to produce emotional and psychological states that some call “spiritual”.
God and religion then are just right around the corner.
But: what does it really mean to say that because we are able to think and to feel these things then “for all practical purposes” we need to?
In other words, we can only construe these things as being worthy or as falling short in a particular set of circumstances. Circumstances that are then ever evolving over time in a world of contingency, chance and change.
Some embrace the spiritual as fundamentally important in their lives. Others scoff at such things. Some once embraced it but now scoff, others once scoffed but now embrace it.
Still, what has never been determined or demonstrated [at least to my knowledge] is which frame of mind all reasonable/rational men and women are obligated to share.
And then [re this thread] the extent to which our obligations as rational and virtuous human beings can be translated into behaviors on this side of the grave able to be translated in turn into a particular fate on the other side of it.