So, that's my entry for 
Photo by NeONBRAND on Unsplash
1 Near Death Experiences
Chris French differentiates between three groups of explanatory models: spiritual theories, psychological theories, and physiological (organic) theories.
Spiritual theories assume that consciousness can become detached from the neural substrate of the brain and that the NDE may provide a glimpse of an afterlife. Psychological theories include the proposal that the NDE is a dissociative defense mechanism that occurs in times of extreme danger or, less plausibly, that the NDE reflects memories of being born. Finally, a wide range of organic theories of the NDE has been put forward including those based upon cerebral hypoxia, anoxia, and hypercarbia; endorphins and other neurotransmitters; and abnormal activity in the temporal lobes.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0079-6123(05)50025-6
2 Past Lives
Most people do not remember previous lives. The world's population is growing – people would have to share past lives. Modern science doesn't know any mechanism that would allow personality to travel to another body.
3 Spiritual Awakenings
I don't know what that means. I'm awake though.
4 Miraculous Recoveries
Things that have a one in 64 million chance of happening happen ... all the time! To presume that your one in 64 million chance thing is a miracle, is to significantly underestimate the total number of things that there are. ... Maths.
– Tim Minchin
5 Coincidences
see above
6 Moments of Magnificence
There are magnificent moments, but there is nothing supernatural about them. They're just great moments.
7 Ghosts/ Hunting
There are no ghosts in this world. Save those we make for ourselves.
– Sherlock (The Abominable Bride)
8 UFOs
Most UFOs are real. They are really Unidentified, they are really Flying and they are really Objects. Most of them are later identified as conventional objects or phenomena.
What about you? Do you believe in supernatural phenomenons? If so, please read this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience
Pseudoscience consists of statements, beliefs, or practices that are claimed to be scientific and factual, in the absence of evidence gathered and constrained by appropriate scientific methods.[1][Note 1] Pseudoscience is often characterized by contradictory, exaggerated or unfalsifiable claims; reliance on confirmation bias rather than rigorous attempts at refutation; lack of openness to evaluation by other experts; and absence of systematic practices when developing theories. The term pseudoscience is often considered pejorative[4] because it suggests something is being presented as science inaccurately or even deceptively. Those described as practicing or advocating pseudoscience often dispute the characterization.[2]
The demarcation between science and pseudoscience has philosophical and scientific implications.[5] Differentiating science from pseudoscience has practical implications in the case of health care, expert testimony, environmental policies, and science education.[6] Distinguishing scientific facts and theories from pseudoscientific beliefs, such as those found in astrology, alchemy, medical quackery, occult beliefs, and creation science, is part of science education and scientific literacy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability
Statements, hypotheses, or theories have falsifiability or refutability if there is the possibility of testing or observing it to showcase how false or how true it is. They are falsifiable if it is possible to conceive of an observation or an argument which could negate them and in the corollary, conceive of an observation or an argument which proves them. Thus, the term falsifiability is synonymous to testability.
For example, the universal generalization that All swans are white is falsifiable since it is logically possible to falsify it by observing a single swan that is not white. Some statements, such as It will be raining here in one million years, are falsifiable in principle, but not in practice.[1]
The concern with falsifiability gained attention by way of philosopher of science Karl Popper's scientific epistemology referred to as "falsificationism". Popper stresses the problem of demarcation—distinguishing the scientific from the unscientific—and makes falsifiability the demarcation criterion, such that what is unfalsifiable is classified as unscientific, and the practice of declaring an unfalsifiable theory to be scientifically true is pseudoscience.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
The scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge.[2] To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry is commonly based on empirical or measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[3] The Oxford Dictionaries Online defines the scientific method as "a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses".[4] Experiments are a procedure designed to test hypotheses. Experiments are an important tool of the scientific method.[5][6]
The method is a continuous process that begins with observations about the natural world. People are naturally inquisitive, so they often come up with questions about things they see or hear, and they often develop ideas or hypotheses about why things are the way they are. The best hypotheses lead to predictions that can be tested in various ways. The strongest tests of hypotheses come from carefully controlled experiments that gather empirical data. Depending on how well additional tests match the predictions, the original hypothesis may require refinement, alteration, expansion or even rejection. If a particular hypothesis becomes very well supported, a general theory may be developed.[1]
Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, they are frequently the same from one to another. The process of the scientific method involves making conjectures (hypotheses), deriving predictions from them as logical consequences, and then carrying out experiments or empirical observations based on those predictions.[7][8] A hypothesis is a conjecture, based on knowledge obtained while seeking answers to the question. The hypothesis might be very specific, or it might be broad. Scientists then test hypotheses by conducting experiments or studies. A scientific hypothesis must be falsifiable, implying that it is possible to identify a possible outcome of an experiment or observation that conflicts with predictions deduced from the hypothesis; otherwise, the hypothesis cannot be meaningfully tested.[9]
The purpose of an experiment is to determine whether observations agree with or conflict with the predictions derived from a hypothesis.[10] Experiments can take place anywhere from a college lab to CERN's Large Hadron Collider. There are difficulties in a formulaic statement of method, however. Though the scientific method is often presented as a fixed sequence of steps, it represents rather a set of general principles.[11] Not all steps take place in every scientific inquiry (nor to the same degree), and they are not always in the same order.[12][13] Some philosophers and scientists have argued that there is no scientific method; they include physicist Lee Smolin[14] and philosopher Paul Feyerabend (in his Against Method). Robert Nola and Howard Sankey remark that "For some, the whole idea of a theory of scientific method is yester-year's debate, the continuation of which can be summed up as yet more of the proverbial deceased equine castigation. We beg to differ."[15]
“The justification for naturalism is that it works: we have never understood anything about the universe by assuming the supernatural, while assuming naturalism as a working hypothesis has moved our understanding ever forward.”
– Jerry Coyne –