Well, in this matter, you can't trust people, there is no way to verify what they're saying regarding their past life, unless you yourself are a Ṛṣi, etc. The person who is claiming his/her past life was so-and-so, might be paranoid, or making it up (and believed that made-up truth), or just imagining. Even if the so-called memories of past life aren't made-up exactly, you can't say for certain if they are truth or not.

Of course, in the case of siddhas, Ṛṣis, yogins, Buddhas or Bodhisattvas, you can trust their words, if they say so-and-so was their past life. There is no problem in trusting śiṣṭas.

there is no way to ascertain the truth validity of that still, even if a person has a birth mark on forehead, where s/he might claim to have been shot in prev. life.

Śāstra doesn't say to believe the words of any random people and taking them as truth. You should trust śiṣṭas, but not ordinary people, on such matters. Also, science can't say anything on such matters. If you go on medical science, your birth mark has nothing to do with a so-called 'past life'. Medical science doesn't accept or reject rebirth, by default it doesn't take rebirth into consideration.

@Bingming well you can be skeptical about anything and everything. Maybe there could be a reference supporting the claims. Who knows? Maybe that reference could in other 59 lakh shlokas of vyasa in mahabharat which went to dev lok Or pitra lok.

Also, to have recognition of past life, you don't need to be some so-called saint. As per Bauddha framework, upon attaining yogipratyakṣa, one attains recognition of the past lives too, just like Buddha. However, yogipratyakṣa is not some child's play, one has to do tremendous sādhanā. That is why, it's better not to believe the random people you may hear about on news, etc. You can trust Ṛṣis, yogins, ācāryas of old, Buddhas, etc. but not these people. Rest is upto you.

If you trust these unreliable people just like that, you would neither be taking a traditional standpoint nor scientific standpoint. You would be in the chasm, and in a pseudoscientific territory, which you did enter when you said things about birth mark and scientists verifying past life with it.

@Bingming isn't traditional standpoint also pseudoscientific according to sciences?

Well, sciences don't accept the traditional standpoint. Medical science doesn't accept rebirth. Traditional standpoint is not pseudoscientific, unless you do a nonsensical mix-mashup with science (which isn't sound in scientific framework but pretends to be scientific) like say Deepak Chopra, etc. do and how theosophists (Blavatsky, etc.) did.

The people who speak of 'aura' testing and all via instruments, are in pseudoscientific territory, they are neither traditional nor scientific. Aura to begin with, is nothing traditional, but a made up western concept.

Stop trusting a random western psychologist who knows nothing about rebirth, trust your ācāryas of old, Ṛṣis, etc., who did possess jñāna. Rebirth is true, and that doesn't need a 'scientific' validation. As for memory of past life, i have already shared points regarding it.

@Bingming what's the qualification of true acharya. One can be fooled by fake pandits too? Also, they have been given various awards . Also, what's need for an athiest /abrahamic Or agnostic to support such claims in his /her scientific journal?

It is possible to have siddhis in successive births too with high level of discipline in previous births. But the level of practice that it demands is very high for such.

Please note Dr. Stevenson's book is NOT ABOUT RE-INCARNATION, but it is more about a proposition that there's something that resembles reincarnation through birthmarks.

Kulārṇava tantra (17.11-12) defines ācārya. archive.org/details/… You can check it. Also, don't put down all ācāryas, simply because there might be some people, who are insincere. If you can't trust current ācāryas, you don't need to doubt the authority of ācāryas of old, such as Ādi Śaṅkara, Ṛṣis such as Vasiṣṭha, etc. smṛtikāras such as Manu, Yājñavalkya, etc. and so on

@Bingming authority of ācāryas of old, such as Ādi Śaṅkara, Ṛṣis such as Vasiṣṭha, etc. smṛtikāras such as Manu, Yājñavalkya, etc. and so on. I am still skeptical about this as their texts can be contradictory many times like manusmriti. Also what will you do if two smritis contradict each other. My opinion:I don't think rishi manu required to comment on homosexuality and many things. We can't even decide what is prakshipt and what's not?

In case of any contradiction in smiritis, shrutis are accepted as an authority.

if smṛtis are conflicting with each other on some issue, then there are either laying down optional alternatives or talking in different contexts. In short, both are to be taken as valid. This is said by both Medhātithi in Manubhāṣya (2.15) and Devī Bhāgavata Purāṇa (11.1.21-25). Of course, mostly there isn't actually a conflict, but due to one's lack of interpretative skills, one perceives a conflict. This is why, it's important to consult traditional commentaries.

Also, don't bring this nonsense 'prakṣipta'. Manusmṛti is not so-called interpolated, it has lots of commentaries on it. We have a tradition, on how it was passed on too, This nonsense was first perpetrated by colonial scholarship, and isn't valid in tradition. There is no-pre colonial proper Hindu ācārya who would dare to insult or reject the authority of Manu, etc. Even Rāma, Bhīṣma, etc. accepted Manu's authority. Great Ṛṣis such as Bhṛgu had attained this vidyā from Manu. And Manu had attained it from Brahmā himself. Veda itself accepts Manu's authority.

@Bingming manu 5.30 and 5.51 explain .