Depends upon what you mean by "consciousness." A lot of the literature seems to use "consciousness" just to refer to physical reality as it exists from a particular perspective, for some reason. For example, one popular definition is "what it is like to be in a particular perspective." The term "to be" refers to, well, being, which refers to, well, reality. So we are just talking about reality as it actually exists from a particular perspective, as opposed to mere description of reality from that perspective. (The description of a thing is always categorically different from the ontology of the thing.)

I find it bizarre to call this "consciousness," but words are words. You can define them however you wish. If we define "consciousness" in this sense, as many philosophers do, then it does not make logical sense to speak of your "consciousness" doing anything at all after you die, as your "consciousness" would just be defined as reality as it actually exists from your perspective. Perspectives always implicitly entail a physical object that is at the basis of that perspective, akin to the zero-point of a coordinate system, which in this case that object is you.

If you cease to exist, then your perspective ceases to even be defined. The concept of "your perspective" would no longer even be meaningful. It would be kind of like if a navigator kept telling you to go "more north" until eventually you reach the north pole, and then they tell you to go "more north" yet again. You'd be confused, because "more north" does not even make sense anymore at the north pole. The term ceases to be meaningfully applicable. If consciousness is defined as being from a particular perspective (as many philosophers in the literature define it), then by logical necessity the term ceases to be meaningful after the object that is the basis of that perspective ceases to exist. It neither exists nor ceases to exist, but no longer is even well-defined.

But, like I said, I'm not a fan of defining "consciousness" in this way, albeit it is popular to do so in the literature. My criticism of the "what it is like to be" definition is mainly that most people tend to associate "consciousness" with mammalian brains, yet the definition is so broad that there is no logical reason as to why it should not be applicable to even a single fundamental particle.

If it is an emerging property then the sense of "self" is most likely bound to this "lump of fat"; more precisely its inability to have connections to someone else except through physical barriers. the most interesting aspect of this is probably what siamese twins once described who were connected at their head. They said that they could "hear the other one's thoughts".

if we could share our minds with one another it would most likely completely change our understanding of consciousness. Likewise, if something can survive the death of the body (the "emerging property" part) then most likely not as an individual given that part is more of a property of our brains.

It's self-evident why esoterical stuff got hooked on these things. The idea of closure on one of the most central religious questions is really appealing.

That would be preferable to my current existence though I think I still might prefer non-existance in the long term.