It's rather amusing that you happily accept the perhaps thousands of accounts somewhat consistent with reincarnation, but not the literally millions of accounts (billions, if you're generous) consistent with a physical basis for consciousness, ranging from experiences with psychoactive substances to brain damage to selective alterations in consciousness on the basis of focal brain damage (c.f. "The Man who Mistook His Wife for a Hat").

There are lots of reasons why people might not want to be entirely forthright with stories about reincarnation. There are lots of reasons why there could be personal contacts that go unnoticed (and in most cases there were personal contacts). There are lots of reasons why researchers might mis-estimate how rare or common something is, or ask leading questions (maybe without realizing).

So it's really not up to the skeptic here to disprove each case. The first job is that of the proponent: document that these things all at least appear to be in order. The original poster didn't manage to come anywhere near to doing that--and this should be the first and easiest thing to do. (The linked article was written for a credulous not a skeptical audience, for instance.) Then we can go back and see what, if anything, still needs explaining.

It is because people think reincarnation is/might be real that we need to be especially wary of it as an explanation. Of course they're more likely to give an account consistent with their beliefs.