I have found this brief article and we could discuss:
True, but there is reasonable evidence to conclude that there is an afterlife.
There good reasons to discard psi only bewteen living in some cases: there is no reason (unless we have already ruled out a priori the existence of an afterlife, which I do not consider valid) for the information psychically gained adopt the appearance of a deceased, in mediumship the communicators vary their communication skills regardless of sitters, the "drop in" communications, etc.
True, but it is more likely that reincarnation happens in the light of such data that not.
Science is not a unified whole; standars are different for different sciences; evidence of an afterlife is no valid evidence for the standars of the hard sciences, physics and chemistry, but it is a valid evidence for the standars of the soft sciences, human and social sciences.
The truth is, there isn't any hard evidence for an afterlife.
This could be evidence of the survival of consciousness after death... or it could be evidence for the psychic retrieval of information unknown to the living person (which would be another mystery).
These cases could be indications of life after death (life after life!), if true, but there is no way to prove them definitively.
So could all of the above combined be considered evidence for an afterlife? Not by scientific standars certainly, but many paranormal researchers might consider it so. But this also raises the question: What would stand as definitive evidence that would withstand scientific scrutiny? Maybe nothing can. Perhaps we'll only finally know after we die. Until then, ideas about the afterlife are a matter of faith and philosophy.