Experienced academics with good track records of research do not require career advice from upstart PhD candidates, notwithstanding the pretentions of the latter to adjudicate for them what is and isn't real science.  Your supervisor sounds experienced enough to make this judgment himself.

Another thing to bear in mind here is that *science is a method, not a topic*.  The mere fact that a person investigates alleged phenomena in a particular field does not make their work scientific or anti-scientific.  What matters is the approach and methodology they bring to the work, which again, experienced academics are in a much better position to judge than you.