If you really want your mind opened, you should read contrary opinions to what you believe. Most people don't really understand those who disagree with them in philosophy, religion, politics, and other controversial areas. Instead, they have in their mind a caricature of the views and arguments of the other side. A philosopher is supposed to be different. A philosopher is supposed to be curious about why people believe differently from him, and to read what those people themselves said, so he can understand their views.
To that end, let me propose some resources that provide a challenge to physicalism and scientism. Some of these books are expensive, but you can often find excerpts or even the whole thing for free online. Ideally, you have access to a university library where you should be able to find all of them.
Challenges to Scientism
Pierre Duhem was a physicist who wrote about the inherently ambiguous nature of physical theory in The Aim and Structure of Physical Theory. He also began the project of rehabilitating the reputation of Medieval scholarship.
Nancy Cartwright follows up on this theme by pointing out that physical laws are literally false; that they are only abstractly true, in How the Laws of Physics Lie
David Hume, who inspired Kant, and is, after Kant, probably the most well-known modern philosopher, proved that the project of science is impossible by the very assumptions that science makes. In other words, he proved that the scientific world view entails that it is impossible to really know the laws of nature. His most famous work in this vein is An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding (no link because it's everywhere).
Karl Popper responded to Hume by arguing that, sure, we can't ever really know scientific laws, but we can falsify them. Popper is often viewed as a defender of science, but most defenders of science insist that somehow, even though they don't know how, Hume must be wrong and the project of science is still possible. Popper accepts Hume's argument and instead offers a fallback position for science. This one is easy to find online: The Logic of Scientific Discovery.
Thomas Kuhn in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions argued that in real life (as opposed to the idealized histories we read) the success of a scientific theory is not based on induction, or the best explanation, or falsification, but on social and political factors. It is the political power and social talent of a theory's proponents that leads to a theory's wider acceptance or rejection.
Challenges to Physicalism
Rene Descartes laid the foundation for both physicalism and most of the challenges to physicalism. On the one hand, he reduced the physical world to purely physical properties, but on the other hand, he introduced the modern world to skepticism about our ability to perceive the real world. If you accept Descartes's general thesis but reject his appeal to a separate world of mind, then you are a physicalist. If you accept his general thesis but reject his appeal to God as a guarantor of our physical knowledge, then you are (or ought to be) a skeptic about the possibility of science. His main work in this area is Meditations on First Philosophy, which you can find online.
George Berkeley took Descartes's reasoning to its logical consequence and argued that we have no reason to think the physical world exists at all. See A New Theory of Vision.
When you have read and understood Descartes, Berkeley, and Hume, you are ready to tackle an introduction to Kant's philosophy in A Critique of Pure Reason. I don't believe Kant mentions Berkeley, but his book can be seen as an attempt to take Berkeley's idealism, remove God, and then use it to solve Hume's Problem. I strongly recommend against trying to tackle Kant without having first read an introduction. The other books I've mentioned are all quite readable (Meditations is the most difficult), but Kant's writing is not for the faint of heart.
After you have read the above, you will have a strong grounding in the other side of the philosophy of science. You will then find a lot of philosophers who have comments on these works, either arguments against them and in defense of scientism, or arguments against the arguments against them.