That is also clearly not all we have.
There isn't evidence to the contrary. What one can argue is that since non-experiencers or people who have similar experiences but have decided they were something else - at this point have not been presented with enough evidence to assume such interpretations of the phenomenon are correct. They are not in the same position as someone who experiences such things regularly and has a different paradigm.Also your example of meeting dead aunts and the like is, in a way, a good example. Some people, I imagine, genuinely believe such things have occurred to them and therefore believe themselves quite logical in something like a soul being real. However to do so they would have to ignore all evidence to the contrary, which is well documented and well verified and logical.
Or let me put it another way. They didn't meet their dead aunt or the like. Therefore there remains no logical reason to believe a soul is real.
There are tons of illogical reasons. And tons of people who believe they are logical, but they are mistaken.
Let me give you two examples that causes your simple assessment problems.
In science it was considered irrational to think animals had emotions, intentions, thought processes, or even were experiencers like we were. This is up to the 70s. Animals were considered basically mechanism a la Descartes. You put your career in jeopardy writing otherwise as a professional in biology, zoology. To animal trainers and pet owners, the fact that animals were quite like us in many ways was obvious. Those people were not irrational, even though their ideas did not fit with the current scientific paradigm. Rogue waves: sailors and others reported giant solitary waves. These reports were dismissed as irrational reports distorted by emotionally charged humans. The rogue waves did not fit current models so reports were dismissed. Over time technology changed, cameras were installed in the bridges of ships, later satellite images confirmed that despite solitary huge waves not fitting current models, they in fact existed. So scientists went back to work and developed models that explained the anomolies.
You speak rather easily about truth. What science, which is not complete, offers us is a set of models and vast ranges of data. We do not know what phenomena will be found to be the case in the future history of science. If your experience does not (seem to) fit with current models or with the current set of what science considers verified and correctly interpreted phenomena, you may, yes, be hallucinating, thinking wishfully, etc. On the other hand, it may be that you are correctly interpreting phenomena, just as other people have in relation to other phenomena dismissed by scientists at other times.
Current models should leave one agnostic on issues like this, but a lot of people cannot refrain from saying that science has disproved certain sets of phenomena when it has not.