I think there is growing support for the idea that consciousness is basic to the universe itself and does not just arise magically in the brain from nowhere. I am sympathetic to this idea.
In Donald Hoffman' s Ph.D. video, at about the 3.22 to 3.30 mark, he admits that the universe exists irrespective of individual or collective conscious.
Hoffman then uses something equivalent to a "god of the gaps" argument. He says in effect that science can't explain as yet how neurons in the brain produce consciousness. He then proposes to turn it all on his head and start with consciousness as central to the universe, derive new laws of Physics, and hopes to mathematically re-derive concepts such as string theory and quantum mechanics. (He mentions those terms, but I wonder if he even knows what they mean.) In the process, some impressive images and videos are shown, but absolutely no maths, observations or science is used to back this idea up in any way, whatsoever.
The video is formulaic. He starts with concepts that we can all agree with, is careful to sound reasonable, uses appropriate scientific jargon, gradually increases the jargon so that it becomes a little harder to follow, and while he still has your trust, introduces he nonsense concepts.
It is certainly not a theory. I don't think it even fits the technical definition of a hypothesis. It is just an abstract concept presented without any basis in support. There is no more support for this concept than, for example, Brokeback's earlier "are we all just a part of a computer simulation ?" concept, or the Matrix concept.
I doubt there is "growing support" for this idea. If there is, then I despair.
By the way, nobody is saying "consciousness... just arise[s] magically in the brain from nowhere...".