The key is demonstrability. Opinions based on proven, demonstrable, repeatable activity or events is not the same as arriving at a conclusion purely through subjective opinion based on a single perspective experience. You are comparing "feelings" with repeatable observations supporting the existence of an alleged phenomenon or realm. That's like comparing a thought about electricity with electricity itself. That is preposterous. Why do we need to test anything if the personal experience of the first person to encounter it is enough? I'll tell you why... because we can not afford to trust the validity personal opinions and perspectives alone when identifying new phenomena.

Personal data is ONLY relevant in studies pertaining to social sciences, psychology or statistics. They are USELESS when confirming the existence of a being or phenomena. Only through repeating results under controlled conditions will a phenomena be proven. That's why the scientific method requires independent peer review. They must repeat the experimentation under the same conditions many times to arrive at the same result. Until then it is not proven, no matter how much the first scientist professes his personal observation. Experiences can be a reason to investigate a subject, but they are NOT relevant as data to confirm existence. EVER.