People believe what they want to believe regardless of the facts. Much like Libs.
Daresay, some would rather be famous in Randi's book; than be right. . .and as well, 'bad vibes' cannot be discounted as problematic. . .goes to same problem as mentioned earlier, encountered by one who engages in experiment with biased outcome 'vibes' - so to speak. Be it the disbeliever. . .or the the confirmed believer. Experimentally, neutrality is the desired and necessary, starting point.
ANYway. . .volumes out there beyond Randi; for those interested. . .with definitive stats and experimental data that should challenge one; if not moved otherwise. . .
But more to your point here; people are comfortable with varying levels of belief/acceptance of reality albeit; thaat which confirms their own comfort zone.
(. . .the very word 'coincidence' simply gives meaning. . .and 'meaningless' to a confluence of events/experiences that are otherwise baffling by there synchronicity. Naming it - naming this occurance is the beginning and end of story for most; and that is fine. The unexpectedness; the challenge of a 'coincidence'. . .the mystery, is put to rest.
Whereas for others; 'coincidence' might appear a red flag that challenges ones idea of reality; may be seen as an challenge or invitation by which they are drawn into further exploration.)
There is no 'right/wrong' in the response here. Just a choice.