not necessarily. some supernatural claims are impossible to test, others are perfectly testable but just haven't ever actually been demonstrated. an example of a testable claim would be human levitation. if you could do this, you could easily demonstrate it under controlled conditions. this would be inexplicable from a scientific point of view. claims which aren't testable in any way aren't really worth as much consideration to me. see russell's teapot. there is an infinite number of proposals humans can come up with that can't be explicitly proven or disproven. the only two options i can see is to either be open towards every idea which can't be substantiated, or to take the fact that it can't be substantiated as a reason not to try to integrate it with my model of reality. i like the second option better. yes, and i would argue there's a good reason that all of the evidence is strictly anecdotal. i don't see the existence of anecdotes about inexplicable events as evidence for those events. i see the consistency with which these anecdotes manifest without any hard evidence to back them up as a good indication that the scientific models are not actually being compromised here and that instead the stories are either misinterpretations or outright lies.