I too wondered if she was talking about those with an incapacity to process oxytocin and experience empathy as others do.
Before we had biological awareness about what 'causes' / allows / is in nature the basis of sociopathy, one could 'assume' that they are soul-less, but that hasn't been my experience of people with this way of being.
And this is kind of spiderweb thinking straddling science and nature, so forgive me for explaining where my thoughts have come from and are going to.
The 'scientific' bent - Not all humans have the capacity to process oxytocin and therefore feel, experience and display empathy. It's a purely biological incapacity.
Synchronistically I started to watch a sci fi tv program called Extant, where a man creates a robotic child, thinking that if they 'culturise' it, raise it with love in a human environment, it will take on human attributes such as empathy & compassion, loyalty, love etc and it seems to be going to fail
It has to fail. If one does not have the capacity to process oxytocin then one quite simply will not have the 'awareness' or the 'capacity' to experience empathy, therefore the notion of 'willingness' or 'possibility' is absolutely mute.
In two scenes, one where the man the 'father' is looking for funding to make more of these 'children' a woman raises the notion of what will 'restrain' them from harming others, they don't have a soul. Which while it leans 'spiritually' and he responds 'scientifically' in terms of behavioural science as being uppermost in creating awareness, capacity responses, both are flawed, and both are blinded by their beliefs.
Empathy appears (as yet) to not be something that you can 'program' into anyone or anything else. But to see lack of empathetic capacity as 'soul-less' seems to be determining what it is to be human and what is the 'soul' without proven evidence. (here we go again E2B
The second scene of note was after the 'robot' exhibited callous selfish behaviours towards the 'mother' and she said he 'hated' her, the 'father' said that the 'child loved her' and she reminded him, it was a robot, and it couldn't 'love' it could only respond within the parameters of the coding that he had programmed into it. That she interpreted it as 'hate' was as erroneous as him interpreting 'love' as a capacity. It's a robot dressed up and mimicking human behaviour.
There was another scene where the robot was standing in front of a mirror 'practising' its facial social responses.
I have to say that was chillingly similar to the way those labelled 'sociopath' have to try to find socially acceptable responses amid the wide range of possible expressions in order to be socially accepted and not be 'outed' for their lack of capacity in situations where empathy would be expected. They just don't know what it is. They have no way of knowing what it is or what it feels like or how it manifests, and why other people behave as they do. All they can see is how other people look when they display these behaviours. All they can hear is what other people say in these situations. As they've learned that it's not socially acceptable to respond in certain situations based on their own capacity, they learn to 'mimic', they put on a 'mask' that is socially acceptable.
They have to continually respond in trial and error. But all the time that they are doing this they know that they are 'pretending', they know if they were honest they would be met with revulsion, and possibly expulsion from their social circle, that they only rely on to fulfil their basic needs.
This revulsion comes from our perspective that all humans 'should' have the capacity to process oxytocin and naturally feel and display empathy. This 'should' is a bias in our perspectives. Those of us who can process oxytocin assume that all others 'should'. The reality is that some can not - not by choice or manipulation, or by the fact that they were born evil, or have been made evil, but by pure biology.
The 'spiritual' perspective (albeit 'mine' and with less or no 'scientific' evidence to support it)
I understand how it might be interpreted as 'soul-less' by some, but it's not 'soul-less' at all in my experience. If 'soul' is made up of the eternal core energy that flows into everything that is made dense and slowed down into form, then this energy is in every atom every neuron every scrap of everything in form. No thing can be 'soul-less'. There can be denser manifestation of it, but it cannot be without it.
When the 'ego' manifests and identifies with 'individuality' - 'separation' it cloaks and 'turns down' awareness of oneness, and in this we are all capable of thinking and behaving like sociopaths - until we remember who we really are etc
In the Neale Donald Walsch story Little Soul and the Sun, in that parable a little soul determines that it wants to experience being forgiveness, as in the light there is no thing to forgive, and therefore no experience of being forgiveness, and another little soul says I'll come with you and give you the opportunity to experience being forgiveness, but don't forget who I really am, and I'll try not to forget who you really are.
So, if the spiritual aspect is followed, it has to be accepted that we are all still light-energy having a physical experience, turning down our awareness to have this adventure of experiencing 'elements' and different 'perspectives' of the all. Then none of us are 'soul-less'.
Until the scientific explanation about processing oxytocin was known, it was easy to think that those labelled as sociopath were choosing to be 'evil'. They're not choosing at all, they are making choices, as we all are, within limited awareness, capacity and willingness.
While the above scientific and spiritual observations are both a 'bed' for my understanding and my awareness, I have had a number of 'opportunities' to relate with and seek to understand the perspectives of those who would or could or have been labelled 'sociopath', and even perceived by others as 'evil' and 'soul-less'. It's just not true. Their actions may be 'evil', but we don't blame a baby for not using capacities they don't have. We don't expect blind people to see us, we don't expect deaf people to hear us, we cannot in the same manner expect these people to display empathy. It's biological capacity, not choice. We can only limit what we choose to experience, not what another is allowed to experience, and therein lays the 'agitation' of relating.
If I were to lean towards the spiritual, and the notions of the 'soul', in my perspective the 'light' excludes nothing and no one and only creates equilibrium from the extremes of energy in motion, manifesting in form. In one long term interaction where I might be confused and seeking to understand another's experience and why they behaved as they did - at the time we did not have the knowledge of the biological functioning and so were limited in awareness and capacity to understand, - I did lean more in my responses in the more 'boundaryless' awareness of the light. In doing so I provided almost no resistance to their way of being, except in agitation where I could not understand it.
I always knew something was missing in my understanding. I had 'evidence' of stuff, but no 'proven' true or false in terms of cause and effect. The scientific factors feed into the biological understanding in terms of capacity.
At times I would 'feel' absolutely from my own extreme empathy capacity as if parts of this person's energy were calling to me and begging me to remember who they really were/are (spiritual understanding). But, this could also just be my sensitivity to another struggling within their own perception of reality. Many would not be able to comprehend the decision making process for one who cannot feel or express empathy, while intellectually they can and do evaluate the possible consequences of their choices as they will impact on them - the impact on others is mute. They are choosing blind.
When I read the Little Soul and the Sun, and when I recall the awareness in the light that all things are 'blameless' it actually has the same level of acceptance as accepting the clinical explanations.
So, it may be as I said earlier that Nanci was interpreting within her own awareness and capacity, and that is never static. It would be interesting to know how she evaluates the scientific processing 'new information', if indeed she was speaking about those known as 'sociopath' or 'psychopath' and trying to explain their behaviours manifesting.
Of course there may be a whole other 'species' that she knows about that we don't
I have never met a soul-less person if she is talking about the energy that creates us all and everything. Not in spirit communication interactions or in physical interactions up to and including sociopaths. It's all creation energy in motion vibrating and combining elements in different densities and frequencies.
Holding 'compassion' for sociopaths, now that's an exercise in boundaries in awareness, capacity and willingness.
It is far easier to judge and condemn, to make up labels, than it is to really seek to understand their place in it all.
ET's stuff about ego making an 'enemy', 'obstacle' or means to an end of a person, thing or situation also feed into understanding. Those unable to feel connection with others, will always feel and respond as if they are totally separate. Others then, are always a 'means to an end', or an 'enemy' or an 'obstacle' to their particular 'end/goal'.