Let me rephrase: I don't see any difference between Matt's legends of paranormal experiences and Nancy's legends of paranormal effects, which include the sub-clause that she (or Levengood) has produced repeatable, statistically significant results. (What difference does that make? They are both equally fanciful.) I don't understand your suggestion that equating fabulation with Indian storytelling tradition is 'taking some kinda hardcore materialist line?' What I'm doing is explaining that we are talking about narratives that reside more in the domain of the social sciences than 'hard' science, and that therefore what we are dealing with is – as with the social sciences in general – inherently messy. Perhaps you should read what I wrote again without seeing it as an insult to any particular strand of research but rather, as recognition of a tradition that some of the claims made in their name are patently absurd.