There might be anthropic issues, I've been thinking about that more the last week. The specific question I've been asking is 'What does it mean for me and someone else to live in the same world?'. Is it possible for gods to exist in my world but not in others, in some sense, if their experience is truly ambiguous w.r.t. supernatural phenomena? From an almost postmodern heuristic perspective this seems fine, but 'the map is not the territory'. But do we truly share the same territory, or is more of their decision theoretic significance in worlds that to them look exactly like mine, but aren't mine? Are they partial counterfactual zombies in my world? They can affect me, but am I cut off from really affecting them? I like common sense but I can sort of see how common sense could lead to off-kilter conclusions. Provisionally I just approach day-to-day decisions as if I am as real to others as they are to me. Not doing so is a form of "insanity", abstract social uncleanliness.

The memories can be regenerated in a mostly trustworthy way, as far as human memory goes. (But only because I tried to be careful; I think most people who experience supernatural phenomena are not nearly so careful. But I realize that I am postulating that I have some special hard-to-test epistemic skill, which is always a warning sign. Also I have a few experiences where my memory is not very trustworthy due to having just woken up and things like that.)

The experiences I've had can be analyzed Bayesianly but when analyzing interactions with supposed agents involved a Bayesian game model is more appropriate. But I suspect that it's one of many areas where a Bayesian analysis does not provide more insight than human intuitions for frequencies (which I think are really surprisingly good when not in a context of motivated cognition (I can defend this claim later with heuristics and biases citations, but maybe it's not too controversial)). But it could be done by a sufficiently experienced Bayesian modeler. (Which I'm not.)

do you think you have incommunicable evidence?

Incommunicable to some but not others. And I sort of try not to communicate the evidence to people who I think would have the interpretational framework and skills necessary to analyze it fairly, because I'm superstitious... it vaguely feels like there are things I might be expected to keep private. A gut feeling that I'd somehow be betraying something's or someone's confidence. It might be worth noting that I was somewhat superstitious long before I explicitly considered supernaturalism reasonable; of course, I think even most atheists who were raised atheist (I was raised atheist) are also superstitious in similar ways but don't recognize it as such.

Sorry for the poor writing.