I am still awaiting your proof that they were real and these events happened - as you claim.
I do not need to disprove your truth claim, since real or parable, they do not demonstrate prayer.
I leave you to wallow in redefining words and trying to pass off a conversation as prayer.
Allow me to address this diversion (since parable or not, there is no prayer being made to Heaven here).
1. While in some discourses the Lord only taught in parables, (All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them:" Matthew 13:34), and Lk. 15 and 16 contain such, yet this does not necessarily mean that all the illustrations used were necessarily only didactic fiction, and could not refer to real persons or events. Unlike the sower and the seed (Luke 8:4); the prosperous farmer (Luke 12:16); the barren fig tree (Luke 13:6); and the wedding feast (Luke 14:7) the story of Luke 16:19-31 is not called a parable 9though that lack itself does not mean it is not). 2. However, in no parable are any actual names mentioned, whereas in Lk. 16:19-31 we have two individuals named.
3. Most significantly, parables are true-to-life stories in which a know earthly realities are used which correspond to spiritual realities, but which never use science fiction. But in Luke 16:19-31 we have a story of a man who is conscious after death and in torments in a real place, which is contrary to what annihilationists believe and who deny the literal character of this story (such try to make this account into being a parable in which the beggar represents the contrite Gentile believers and the rich man represents the Pharisaical Jews), and thus a man who is conscious after death and in torments would be science fiction.
4. Even if one believes in eternal torment, making the two parties here to be representative of Gentiles and Jews is strained, and while they do represent the saved versus the lost (whom Luke elsewhere describes as being materially over-indulgent and complacent), yet i think it is too detailed (and in its details) to merely be a parable.
As another commentator states,
a parable must be a true-to-life story in order for it to have any meaning to those who hear it. To try to use a fanciful story containing elements that have no basis to the world in which men and women live would only serve to confuse people rather than providing them with spiritual light. ..
When we come to the account of the rich man and Lazarus, we find a situation different from what is found in any of the parables....
The hearers of this story could follow the contrast between these two men right up to the moment of their deaths. At that point, however, the situation changes drastically. The outcome was something that they could not relate to any life situations that they had ever witnessed. The state and location of the departed soul was beyond their life experiences, or what is commonly known to be true by experience. The circumstances described go beyond the realm of the parable. That does not mean that it isnt a true-to-life story, however. Physical death is a natural part of the life experience of all mankind, but what takes place afterward is hidden from those who have not yet experienced it. In this account of a beggar and a rich man, the Lord was revealing the reality of what takes place following physical death to drive home an important truth. We should mention at this point that even if it was a parable, the place referred to as Abrahams bosom and the account of what took place in there would have to be based on reality for it to have any meaning.
Following are some reasons that this should be considered a history of two real men and not a parable.
More : https://www.bereanbiblesociety.org/the-rich-man-and-lazarus-luke-1619-31/