How can you justify someone’s explanation to an experience they claim to have witnessed as an accurate explanation for the event? You have to test their response to the situation. But we can’t in this case can we? So this just makes their testimony hearsay for us. If it was a benign claim, like some guy claiming to be the son of a deity, not big stretch of the imagination that someone would claim to be a profit. If they go further and claim to witness mystical events, the evidence needs to match that level of claim since there is no, zero, nada evidence of the supernatural being part of reality. Would you take it on just testimony alone that Hogwarts exists? Regardless of the amount of people claiming to have witnessed it? You can actually run into people who claim to have been abducted by aliens, but how do we take their account of an event to be a true explanation of the event itself? It’s about what you can justify based on the level of the claim being made. To some people, testimony is enough. To others, we need more evidence since there are other plausible reasons why a group would perpetuate a myth for their own social benefit.