Your post is almost a deductive argument, but I'm not quite seeing it work.
Premise 1: The structural integrity of your body is controlled by the spiritual function.
Premise 2: In order to coherently self-configure, reality must simulate itself.
Premise 3: Reality is simulating itself.
Conclusion: Therefore, the spiritual function can cause medical miracles.
You've got some big problems. First, you need to define "structural integrity," "spiritual function," "self-configuration," "reality," "simulate," and "medical miracle." I don't understand how you're using these terms.
A deductive argument must have sound premises and a valid structure to be accepted. Based on my current understanding of these terms, your premises seem unsound. Also, since miracles are mentioned nowhere but in your conclusion, your argument is poorly structured and is invalid.
In my experience, all miraculous claims I've ever heard are examples a logical fallacy called the "argument from ignorance." Namely, "I don't know the explanation for X. If a thing G existed, then by definition it could sufficiently explain X. Therefore X is evidence for G."
The problem with this fallacy is that it can be used to support any imaginary conclusion. For example. We see trees growing but I don't know how that works. I propose there are invisible magical turtles that cause trees to grow. We see trees growing, therefore invisible magical tree-growing turtles exist. I think you can get an inkling of why this argument doesn't shed light on what is true or real. The same is true for miracle claims.
A miracle claim can be broken into two separate claims:
1. A thing happened, X.
2. The thing that caused X to happen is G.
For 1, the actual event is very hard to establish, and usually when investigated the claim of what actually occurred is shown to be false, or impossible to verify. For example, someone's "pain felt better" or "Mary appeared in the clouds."
For 2, there is never any evidence to tether the causation of X by G, or that G in fact demonstrably exists. There is where the argument from ignorance comes in. "I don't know what it could be, so it must be god." In fact, we should stop at "I don't know what it could be." That is the honest conclusion. The fact that scientists and curious thinkers throughout the ages have not settled for "so it must be god" is why we have computers, phones, airplanes, rockets, medicine, and so much more technology today.