Typical desperate attempt to ignore the objectively reasoned position being presented and, instead, simply throw multiple stories of the ooky and the spooky in our direction, demanding we consider each and every case.
James Randi has a million dollar prize that nobody has ever successfully claimed.
No 'psychic' has ever been able to demonstrate a 'paranormal' ability under properly controlled conditions. Not one.
On the other hand, there are vast numbers of cases proving them to be narcissistic attention-seeking frauds. Or just greedy money grubbing frauds. Or . . .
Well, you get the idea, they are all frauds. Each and every one of them. Throwing a shit-ton of 'well what about this . . .' links at us isn't a reasonable way to present an argument, you are, instead, completely avoiding the reasoned positions being presented to you and reposting the same deflection/diversion statements that are generally meaningless.
The burden of proof for your claims lies with you. You cannot dishonestly ignore that fact by responding with questions and demands we debunk each and every one of your shonky stories that, were they to have any reasonable degree of evidential quality, would not dwell solely in the domain of the 'spiritual' community.
Typical dualism-believing behaviour, whether it be religion or it's shape-shifting twin 'spiritualism', you respond to requests for a valid objectively-reasoned argument to be presented, with that which is barely a degree above Bill O'Reilly "Tide goes in, tide goes out . . .you can't explain that" assertion.
Even if talking about something in nature we don't yet fully understand, science says, "we do not fully understand yet". You don't get to simply make crap up and claim it to be worth equal consideration as an explanation, which is what theists and 'spiritualists' do.
Learn to present an intellectually honest argument, absent fallacious reasoning or outright dishonest deflection or diversion.
