I've heard that near-death-type experiences can be induced by stimulating the brain. I guess that calls into question a lot of the religious experiences people report.
Consider instead: computer hardware glitches being caused undervoltage or overclocking vs gremlins; and the cat picture on your screen being caused by opening /r/cats in your browser vs the NSA hacking your video card.
Or what about children who talk of ghosts and deceased relatives: are they fabricated?
There are things we have no clue about, mainly pertaining to whatever this consciousness and mind is. And our science is too early to be able to adequately describe them, so we dismiss it as "unscientific".
But what about 3-5 year olds who accurately say they are a person from a previous life, and go into details that only the person would remember? Are they just making "lucky guesses"? How many correct guesses does it take before its something more?
No amount of lucky guesses can result in a proof, due to things like confirmation bias. The plural of anecdote is not data, as they say.
People underestimate the intelligence, imagination, and most importantly memory of 3-5 year olds. The presumption that these things must be true because children are too young to have made them up or heard them elsewhere is unsupportable. It's entirely possible that the child overheard others talking about all of the things they are describing, and/or that those who want to believe will mentally fill in the gaps[0].
One would have to rule out all potential contamination from people, media, etc., provide a testable, repeatable experiment, and provide a real mechanism behind the effect, before any scientific credibility could be given to ideas of supernatural revelations to children.