You forgot again the part when she prayed God, but that's ok.
The kind of evidence you ask for do not exist outside testimony. Let me refresh your memory (You must not read my posts very carefully) :
I don't care if someone "prayed", or pooped, or farted, or punched someone in the face. Correlation does not equal causation.
So you are arguing irrationally again. This is called the Post Hoc Ergo Proper Hoc
Just because one event comes after another event, does not mean
(in any way) that the first event caused the second event. You should know that.
Whether such claims effect you or not is entirely irrelevant to the question. Maybe for you but for me it is the principal reason why I would believe others testimony or not.
For example :
- You tell me that you have been cured by Para-Brahman. I don't know you, it doesn't impact me. I believe you.
- You tell me that you have been cured by Para-Brahman and that I should pray him. I does impact me, I don't believe you.
You just contradicted yourself. You admitted that if I told you I was cured by Para-Brahman you would not know
(which means you would be agnostic about it and/or undecided). And then you turned right around and said you would believe that I was cured by the healer. That is irrational (not surprising with you). Second, and once again, it doesn't matter whatsoever if something impacts you, because a claim is either true or false regardless of it's impact on someone. So impact is irrelevant to the subject. You either accept someones testimony as true (i.e. - that it actually happened) or you do not.
You are practicing more intellectual hypocrisy by trying to insert "impact" as a caveat to believing whether something is true, because the only way you could actually show that you truly believe whether (for example) I was healed by Para-Brahman would be to actually act on that belief in accordance with it. Just saying
you believe something doesn't mean that you actually do. Talk is cheap.