The only theories not ruled out by Bell are non local. You have to accept such a mountain of nonsense for any non local theory to be valid that I don't think anyone takes them seriously.

Aside from non-local theories which have been known since the 1950s and are regularly used in quantum chemistry, superdeterministic theories have seen virtually no development. Claims that they either of these approaches entail a mountain of nonsense are based on no evidence.

I think you are misunderstanding. These are typically mathematical tricks used for computation and don't lead to actual non-local interpretations of QM. I don't think any major work is done without standard QFT.

I doubt you can find any serious Theoretical Physicist who believes retrocausality or FTL information transmission is compatible with the Universe we observe.

Anyway we've diverged off the actual crux which is that Quantum Conscious Woowoo theories require types of hidden variable theories which are not coherent with this Universe.

> These are typically mathematical tricks used for computation and don't lead to actual non-local interpretations of QM.

Bohmian mechanics is an explicitly non-local theory of QM, not merely a computational trick. It actually makes predictions that differ from QM in non-equilibrium regimes, but is consistent with QM in all regimes currently accessible to us.

> I don't think any major work is done without standard QFT.

I don't know what "major work" means. Work in quantum foundations is done without QFT all of the time. Yes, QFT is a useful effective theory, but that's a far cry from the original claim about the nature of reality, ie. that there are necessarily no hidden variables. Literally no experiment has ruled out hidden variables wholesale, only certain types of hidden variables.

> Anyway we've diverged off the actual crux which is that Quantum Conscious Woowoo theories require types of hidden variable theories which are not coherent with this Universe.

Maybe consciousness would require hidden variables, but your conclusion is still based on a fundamental error, which is that we have observations that are inconsistent with hidden variables. Since this claim is in error, then the conclusion does not follow.