A flame is a concept but a lit candle doesn't have "a flame", it is more the name of the result to a reaction, reaction gives out heat and light that we call "flame".

And when we blow it out, what we commonly mean as flame is indeed totally gone

Not exactly, reaction that creates the generation of heat and light we call flame is gone but there is no solid "the flame" of that reaction, it is constantly dissipating into air.

When it goes out it breaks down just like our bodies do when we die

But flame doesn't "go out", you stop reaction, when a campfire is dying out it isn't flame that is dying out but the fuel that is causing the reaction. Flame is constantly dissipating into air.

The flame hasn’t gone anywhere, it’s just ceased to be, just like ourselves

No, flame is literally gone EVERYWHERE and have been going everywhere, it is a result of chemical reaction that is dissipating, it is constantly going somewhere as heat and light that it is. "The flame" didn't cease to be but reaction stopped. Heat and light are still there as energy.

That’s the point of the analogy and the similarities upon which it rests.

Well first analogy itself is wrong anyway, you don't seem to understand "flame" isn't an object that ceases, it is the result of a reaction that never (truly) ceases but just dissipates. And even if your description of a flame were correct, to make similarities with consciousness we would also need a solid description of consciousness, sadly we still don't know shit about consciousness.

If you are going to claim "we know what consciousness exactly is!" or something like that, you may call all the philosophers and other academics doing research on consciousness so they may stop all the work because a Redditor solved one the biggest questions of history.

So neither your analogy works nor is it comparable to a concept we barely know anything about.