So we have finally reached the point where you require a naturally rigorous method to identify a supernatural cause. That's good because it finally illustrates where you are in the debate.
Since I have already explained that requiring natural methodologies to explain a supernatural event will guarantee a wrong answer, then I can see that you want the wrong answer.
Congratulations, you have it.
Science is an attempt to gain the clearest and most accurate vision of the natural world around us. To do that it needs a rigorous approach and the assurance that the data will not be affected by some supernatural entity.
You seem to be arguing that we should just claim that goddit and leave it at that.