What happened I missed it?
If it could be proved that the material universe operates independently of observation that would probably be a disproof of biocentrism. Lanza's main argument seems to be that there is evidence that observation affects causation in the material world. He is suggesting a paradigm shift is in order because the irregularities in the traditional conception of the universe are mounting up. Anything showing that observation does not affect the material world would undermine his argument.
If we ask Lanza how his idea is falsifiable it might be a fair question to ask how the traditional view of the world is falsifiable. If either consciousness arises from the material universe or the material universe arises from consciousness. Why assume it's the former and not the latter? Is there any rational or falsifiable basis for prioritising one explanation over the other? Just because it seems a bit Star Trek or Twilight Zone, doesn't mean it's not true. Just because one view is traditional and dominant doesn't in itself make it more rational than an alternative if the alternative has equal explanatory power.
Yes I was a postman for a few months only. It was much easier then because deliveries were only 2 hours long and sometimes finished by half past 10 on a Tuesday which was the lightest day.