IMO, that's enough context for me to change my view on what the RaW is, and that the scope of that immunity & resistance is narrower than I had thought; imo it is specifically talking about damage, not effects.
That is quite literally impossible, because the rules recognize only one type of immunity that specifically refers to damage:
[1]: When you have immunity to a specific type of damage, you ignore all damage of that type.
So when an ability says "immunity to fire" or "immunity to piercing", then yes, it could only refer to damage, because both "fire" and "piercing" are damage types.
But when an ability says "immunity to water" or "immunity to swords", then it cannot be referencing the immunity to damage category, because neither water nor swords are a damage type. It has to refer to another immunity category. The same holds true for "immunity to spells".
tl;dr:
The meaning of "immunity" can only be narrowed to "immunity to damage", when that immunity references a damage type.
Spells have an easier time wounding you. You gain weakness 2 to any damage dealt by a spell. Any immunity or resistance you have to spells is suppressed.IMO, that's enough context for me to change my view on what the RaW is, and that the scope of that immunity & resistance is narrower than I had thought; imo it is specifically talking about damage, not effects.
The real bugbear is that while it is entirely possible for some like Finoan or myself to think the context of the "damage" part applies to the immunity line, it's also totally valid for others to think it's a disconnected rule.
_____________TBH, I don't think that curse is even intended to prevent the "spam prevention immunity" of incoming harmful spells like Blindness.
That would make that mystery's T1 cursebound effect waaaaay worse than all the others.
Oracle curses vary so wildly in how bad they are that "this one is really bad so it's probably wrong" doesn't mean anything. This is the same class that thinks Enfeebled and Clumsy are equivalent on a spellcaster, after all. It's also the one that gives Life Link to the one that also has Resistance to healing in amounts far beyond any of the weaknesses that other curses give. Like, one of them is Weakness 2 at Cursebound 1 and the other at equivalent Cursebound is Resist Healing that goes all the way to 20.
The relative impact of a curse means absolutely nothing on Oracle because the curses are so all over the map on it already that there is absolutely no baseline to judge from.
It's also just unintuitive and hard for the GM to work with. Questions like: Are foes supposed to know that this one PC is not immune to repeat castings in the middle of combat? etc.
There's a bunch of things in the game that already work like that, including on this class. A GM has to know that anyone with Nudge the Scales might actually have void healing today, or that a Tempest Oracle wearing a Jolt Coil has Resist Electricity 2 while Cursebound 0 but loses that (and gains Weakness 2 instead) at Cursebound 1, which is not how it would work for any other class that has both a resistence and a weakness.
That's just the reality of GMing a complex game like this. Players should also know that they're not immune, though, and if they're using the "not immune to sure strike cooldown" part it shouldn't be that hard to remember they're also not immune to any other spell effects that they would normally be.