@Arkandel Here's the thing.
I've already pointed to one instance of "I don't like the inferred conclusion, so the experience must not have happened" thinking in this thread. Not, "I think there's a different explanation for that," but, "that experience is untrue because I disagree with the inferred conclusion."
Where is the testing of theories? Where is the examination of evidence? There isn't any, but there is a conclusion. It's not a conclusion about the experience at all, either, but one that dismisses the experience (which could have multiple explanations) as something that may never have occurred at all.
I think we're both likely to agree: that's not how you science. 
I think I gave a pretty good example previously about how someone applied a scientific theory to an experience someone was having, an experience around which multiple people had formed theories regarding the cause. One person bothered to find out the actual cause and resolved the issue, and both of the others were wrong. I am so down with that, and it's an excellent example of what, I think, you're trying to describe as an experience being 'testable'.
But now let's look at how long we've been witnessing events people have ascribed to the supernatural, and think for a minute about just how broad that scope actually is. Pretty much every meteorological and geological event has, at some point in human history, been considered a supernatural event, from volcanic eruptions to a light drizzle.
These are things we understand now. Maybe not in full in some cases, but we generally know what they actually are.
That alone has caused our understanding of the world around us to explode with answers, and more questions. And here's the kicker: it's pretty fascinating stuff, but people have to ask the questions to find out. Too often, the question is not asked. The experience is not tested, but a conclusion is still yanked out because 'well, it could fit!' without testing that theory to see if it does or not.
Let's look at a classic: The Bermuda Triangle. An uncommonly high number of ships sink there, navigation goes wonky, and so on.
Well, 200 years ago, we knew a little about lodestones but we didn't understand electricity, and even less, naturally occurring electrical fields or consider that, "Hey, we know some rocks screw up our compasses, maybe there's something here that does the same thing!" Which, indeed, happens. Is it an angry god, ghosts, or aliens? Nope. Is it something that happens? It sure is.
High prevalence of sinkings? Oh, hey... they have a lot of methane pockets in that region, don't they. Another thing we didn't think of even 100 years ago, even if we understood the basic concept of density and buoyancy.
Notice that to recreate the effect in that video, they had to physically reproduce it. (That's something well outside the means of most individuals; let's be realistic here on that point right from the get-go.) But here's the thing about that: that shows that the theory is possible as a cause. While I personally think they're probably right, here's what it doesn't show:
- That it happens the same way in the natural environment at the same intensity.
- That any given incident ascribed to it happened that way.
What people are essentially doing, more often, is not even going as far as what's shown in the link. Let's say the person who observed the initial incident has no information other than, "I saw a lot of bubbles and then the ship went down," which would be the description someone could provide today as easily as they could have 200 years ago. They then sail out to the same spot, they sit there, and say, "That didn't and obviously can't happen because we're where you said this happened and we're not sinking and there are no bubbles."
And then they're calling it science. That's not science, or if it is, it is the laziest science in the world. And the vast majority of the time, that's exactly what people are doing when they're seeking to prove -- or disprove! -- things currently in the 'supernatural' cluster. The sheer intellectual laziness of it is stunning and it is no wonder people aren't learning jack nor shit from these 'experiments'.
Now, human failings and weaknesses are a thing. We know this. They do not, however, only apply to one side of this particular debate. 'Trust the answer you think you know already' is one of them. 'Believe the thing it is more emotionally comfortable to believe', 'Believe the thing that you think makes you smarter/special/chosen/superior', the list really just keeps going on and on, but it's a double-edged sword. It doesn't just swing in one direction -- or objectively should not -- and yet, it appears that level of examination and criticism isn't something people are keen to apply to their own arguments. A shame, because it's helpful on all fronts. People only ever seem to want it to apply to the other guy, and often enough that seems to put their own blinders on in the process.
(Not actually my house, but my grandmother's house; she lived next door and babysat me when I was tiny and then I moved in there as a teen, etc.) Lots of weird things went down there with stunning frequency, enough that a lot of things that would flip out my friends never really phased me since I grew up with it.
I'd apparently noped the house long enough that it happened. (I woke up after the 'this was different' with finger bruises on my wrists, the ward ripped off my door and physically broken, and aching like I'd been stretched on the rack. It was not fun.) I would have been real happy convincing myself that one was a dream or something else, but nope; I kinda count myself lucky it only ever happened the once, really. Was definitely a different thing than the medical stuff people describe as the body is trying to shake off REM sleep.