I think this is wrong.

One part of the argument from miracles goes like this: There's such-and-such a rate of people reporting things that would have to be miraculous if anything like them happened; so either there are real miracles or all these people are either crazy or lying, which isn't plausible.

And one response goes like this: Well, actually being crazy isn't so very unusual; 3% of all people are downright psychotic at some point in their lives (according to definitions that don't reckon most instances of thinking miracles have happened to them as evidence of psychosis). So how implausible is it, really, that there's enough craziness around to account for most of those reports of miracles?

It's true that saying "X thought s/he witnessed a miracle because X was psychotic" is little more informative than "X thought s/he witnessed a miracle because God performed a miracle", but I don't think that matters here. The person making the response in the foregoing paragraph isn't claiming to have a good explanation for the alleged miracles, but only that the theist's argument that only a supernatural explanation is credible is incorrect.