In general, it seems valuable to me to attempt to rewrite things more precisely, both as an aid to my understanding and for the purposes of communication.

The last clause was ambiguous to me, because it could suggest giving a comparable amount of credence to supernatural explanations. It seems reasonable to me to give particular anti-credence to supernatural explanations, because they seem strictly dominated by explanations that involve mental illness. Further, the parts about incommunicable evidence strike me as pushing towards the strong interpretation.