Belief in a soul is not universal. Buddhism denies the existence of a soul, whether of the Abrahamic or the Hindu versions.
There’ve been problems since the Tower of Babel incident.
What we have here is an issue having to do with the meaning of what is a soul.
Let’s investigate the reality of what we mean when we say “me”.
There clearly is a collection of molecules that comprises our body. Is my body me? Well, yes and no; yes because that is the centre of the referential frame which forms one’s perceptions, understandings and feelings. A cerebral vascular accident here or there will seriously alter any of these relationships we have with the world around us. At the same time, no, it’s not me because the myriad of atoms and molecules come and go as part of the totality that is the universe.
Then we have the hero of our individual life script, the central character who faces trials and tribulations, meets success and suffers failure and pain. While the little guy who sat on his dad’s shoulders, grabbed the ball from his little brother, day-dreamed in school, met and married his wife is “me”, that character is but a part of something greater, transcendent to that social self, as a material, psychological and spiritual being grounded in the moment where all takes place.
And even though I, with free will clearly existing in relation to all that is other to my being, even though all these attributes would belong to me, I am not their cause. I do not bring myself into existence. Some would therefore say that there is nothing but the one true, infinite and eternal Source of all there is which we know to be God. All else is outside and transient to the Triune Godhead who brings all creation into existence.
Most Buddhist thinking understands reincarnation as part of a process towards Nirvana. I’m sure you believe it. In the end no one reaches their final Home in eternity; we approach it by divesting ourselves of sin, by blowing out the candle, by dying in and surrendering ourselves to Christ.
