@QuantumBrick I don't know about SB except that that Wikipedia article exists. I don't know but I think that Triratna may be an example. There are or have been at least a couple of Triratna members on this site. One of them was Jayarava who (among other things) has evidently studied Pali texts. There is a page of his here on the subject of rebirth, which you may or may not want to read.

Or Andrei (in my opinion) gives sensible answers on this site (though, I'm not trying to identify him as a Secular Buddhist nor Triratna). When I asked about rebirth, his answer was one of the top-voted answers -- it says that "Rebirth is a metaphor". (I'm writing this to try to reply to your question, "I'd like to know how usual is this point of view within Buddhism").

Or Ven Yuttadhammo's answer calls rebirth a "concept" etc.

Thanks @ChrisW. You have been extremely helpful since the beginning. I will read the references you've sent and let you know what comes to my mind. Thank you again!

But something that crossed my mind was to check which school Buddhadasa Bikkhu belonged to, and it happens to be Maha Nikaya. Perhaps his view is widespread within this branch.

Also, you mentioned the four noble truths ... they say they're not supposed to be believed so much as practiced; more specifically 1) understood 2) abandoned 3) realized 4) cultivated respectively. I'm not sure what you're supposed to do with the view/concept of rebirth (and meanwhile, there's this life). When you get into the definition of "right view" it includes e.g. "actions have consequences" and so on -- which could include (imply) rebirth but also makes some sense without it.

@QuantumBrick Maybe. Apparently there are different (and sometimes, opposing) views of various doctrines, but I don't have that many details.

I supposed learned in school e.g. that photons are wave-like and particle-like so I try to suspend judgement on the subject of which view is true.

Just a side note: photons are actually excitations of an underlying quantum field of symmetry group U(1). That's the previous use definition ;)

That's the precise definition*

@QuantumBrick I don't know that much (my undergraduate specialty was maths rather than physics). I thought the point of particle-versus-wave was that each is a model or a description or an analogy to explain different observations ... e.g. it's like a particle in that it can knock an electron off an atom, and it's like a wave in that it behaves as shown in the double slit experiment.