Just because it's well known doesn't mean it's explained.
True, but that's more the exception than the rule. Go for it: name ONE well-known common-place phenomena observed by humans today that is NOT sufficiently explained by current theories of science.
(Oh, there ARE some I can think of, but generally most of the unresolved questions are esoteric matters observed by, and of interest only to, astronomers and physicists in CERN lab experiments and the like. I highly doubt you can come up with ONE common-place phenomena which current theories don't satisfactorily address.)
So your explanations are "coincidence" and "Occam's Razor." You didn't give any spiritual explanations and there are many that fit (the soul and reincarnation for example) even though I explicitly requested that you do. You are perfectly content with a non explanation which fits perfectly in my analogy.
And that sentence convinces me beyond a reasonable doubt that you don't actually understand what occam's razor is, and hence shouldn't be bandying the term about as if you do: it's not an "explanation", but a guiding principle for selecting between alternative explanations.
The reason I didn't offer any spiritual explanations (as you requested) is the same reason I didn't suggest that invisible space aliens from the invisible planet Nebula surfed on interstellar Boogie Boards on massive cosmic waves, and killed both framers at the same time: it's an incredible waste of brain glucose to fantasize and make up nonsensical hypotheses (that are arguably only valuable if you're the author of science fiction books).
You'd have to prove the existence of an ethereal 'spirit' before you start using it in your explanation. At this point, all you have is a 'spirit realm hypothesis' with perhaps some circumstantial evidence (based on personal testimonies, which are known to be extremely unreliable) but nothing to warrant accepting it as a formal "theory of spirits" (which is what theology actually is: a collection of questionable personal experiences used to form a hypothesis that spirits exist, where the chief bit of evidence is the Holy Bible).
Early scientists did that kind of thing in the past of imagining invisible substances (see phlogiston theory of burning) but when the evidence failed to support the particular theory, they were forced to go back to the drawing board to modify the hypothesis to account for their observations. Any other approach is putting the cart in front of the horse, since theories MUST abide by the observational evidence, not vice-versa.
You really should head to a nearby community college and enroll in ONE evening course this upcoming semester: take just one course, maybe an intro to logic class, or a basic math class, or a general science (chemistry or intro to biology) course. Your current approach to the topic is undisciplined, yet you seem to enjoy discussing all of these science-related topics, so you really should learn more about these subjects for which you've been quite willing to form conceptions (and even share them).