We have been over this whole 'scientific evidence' discussion before and I don't want to go over old ground, but actually there is a huge amount of evidence that reincarnation is at the very least one very feasible hypothesis for what happens after death. The story cited at the top of the article is only one of many thousands of similar stories, many of them even more compelling. Drs Tucker and Stevenson gathered a truckload of such stories over many years (as described in the article), all from children who had no reason, let alone inclination, to deceive. Either all these people are liars or crazy and there is a huge organised conspiracy, or there is something going on which really ought to be looked into systematically.
The main reason there is a scarcity of 'proof' - ie. something written up in 'Nature' magazine and so on, is there is so much religion, fear and superstition around on this subject that no scientist (or editor) who values his career, will go anywhere near it for fear of ridicule.
I find far too many people who don't know anything about the topic far too quick to dismiss it without looking into it properly. "There is no proof!" they cry. I always ask them on what basis they make that statement. They seldom have an answer other than to say 'There just isn't!". This is blind ideology talking, not a scientific process of enquiry being championed.
