I’ve written about this in various places, but let me just be brief here, if you can forgive my bluntness!
There’s no mind/body dualism in early Buddhism. Terms and ideas that seem to imply this in later Buddhism, such as nāma-rūpa, which is sometimes translated as “mind and body”, have quite a different meaning in the early texts. When the Buddha divided things up, he usually inserted the analytical knife elsewhere; for example, in the five aggregates, the classification is not mental vs. physical aggregates, but the first four vs. consciousness.
Rather, the Buddha took as the primary reality the complex web of interconnected experience. He then used analysis to tease out the different aspects of that in order to understand it. But this is the opposite technique to that used by dualists. You don’t start with two incompatible substance, then try to fuse them together. You start with a complex messy unity, and learn to make sense of it by seeing how different aspects work together.
This doesn’t mean that you can’t discern between mental and physical aspects of reality. It just means that you are not assuming there is some fundamental underlying substance behind that experience.
Thus the whole philosophical Frankenstein of mind/body dualism has no place in early Buddhism, and we should always avoid imposing such ideas on it.
Further complicating and nuancing this picture is that the boundaries of what is mental and what is physical are drawn differently. Rūpa is essentially physical properties as perceived by the mind, so it includes things like colors and shapes even if they are seen only in the mind’s eye. So something like what we in the west would call an “out-of-body” experience is certainly not “out of rūpa”: it is just a more subtle form.