There are many rational explanations but that doesn't mean there is proof for them. Rational does not imply proof, rational implies logical. Irrational implies illogical. You can have logical falsehoods and illogical truths.
I have explored the rabbit hole, and there seems to be a reasonable explanation for everything, if you open up your mind of course.
Reasonable means what? Accepted by the mainstream?
IMO the mainstream is no judge of what is reasonable.
Anything can be rationalized away by a sufficiently creative person. The question to ask is not what something proves but what something means.
Does it really matter if these highly coherent messages being delivered in identical fashion to various people who have no contact or similarities with each other, etc... Does it really matter if they are explained by Jung's Collective Unconscious or by Erin's Spirit Guides or by Elkin's UFOs?
Does that really matter?
Does it really matter if they are just a common human phenomenon that occurs when people tap into their subconscious, or if they are aliens communicating with us telepathically?
What really matters is the message. You won't find a piece of hard impersonal solid proof. That doesn't exist. I've looked. What you will find is masses and masses and masses of circumstantial evidence. It will never be enough to instantly convert a nonbeliever. This is the nature of the phenomenon. The same stuff has been reported for thousands of years. There has never been a "mass proof" event. There is only personal proof - proof that you cultivate on your own through honest, sincere, genuine, open-minded, objective, independent contemplation and meditation.
If your standard of proof is so high that you can just brush off people like Erin Pavlina or Don Elkins and repeat your mantra that "That isn't good enough!" then you probably aren't going to find the proof on the outside. You'll have to look inside. You'll have to point your curiosity within in a calm way and then accept whatever comes to you so that it will continue to come.
The explanations disbelievers use to dismiss the phenomena are just as untested as the explanations that believers use to support the phenomena.
Even if Don Elkins provided millions of pages of hypnotic regressions, channellings from disparate sources around the world, UFO contact reports, videos of telepathy, videos of UFOs, and so on and so on and so on, a sufficiently creative and intelligent person will be able to dismiss them as clever fabrications or esoteric delusions or some other very creative (but completely unproven) explanation.
But this very creative and intelligent person is not being intellectually honest. Because having such a massive body of data with such high correlations over long periods of time, does present strong proof to the intellectually honest person that _something_ weird is going on.
Once the honest person admits that something weird is definitely going on, they have become a student of the mysteries. Their only true comfort will be an inner gaze. The answers are within. Erin Pavlina cannot prove anything to you, she can only suggest some place for you to search in. This inner searching will have to be done by yourself, with an open mind.
Everyone who has experienced the paranormal doesn't really know what is going on. They usually can't explain it, and only rarely can they barely control it. They develop theories that are useful to them, but most of them will readily admit they can't prove their theories. It's a mystery. They don't know HOW it happens and often they don't even know WHAT is happening, but they do know that it is beyond normal experience and they do know that it is fact.
I look at an aura on a person, and I know that I see it. I don't really know what it is. I don't know how it's created. I've never heard a proven scientific explanation or even a slightly sensible scientific explanation - and I have heavy formal education in the hard sciences and I'm very creative and intelligent. So I should be able to fabricate some explanation. But if I'm honest with myself, I won't, because that fabricated explanation will be just as untested and unprovable as some explanation about ghosts. There is less evidence for string theory than there is for spirits - that's a fact to anyone who knows the first thing about string theory. Yet hardened skeptics will entertain fantasies about string theory for years, to the point where everywhere they see strings, but when presented with some circumstantial evidence about spirits they immediately dismiss it due to the social conventions that have shaped their life.
I've seen lots of crazy things but in the end I know nothing. It's a mystery. Maybe I'm still dreaming and have yet to wake up.
Well, one thing I do know is that my contemplation of this mystery has made me a more loving, generous, thoughtful, compassionate person. So even if it's all just a big delusion and I'm completely insane, I call that a success.
I think there is a point in every skeptic's life where they have to decide what is more important to them: Incontrovertible proof of the 100% truth before they act, or acting on partial knowledge. In the latter, you find success and happiness and humiliation when you screw up. In the former, you literally die without your proof because 100% proof of anything is impossible whether it's electrons or aliens.