It doesn't really seem to me like you're discussing reincarnation basically at all in this post, just some anecdotes about this Sadhu Haridas guy (
Wikipedia page here, in case you're interested) who could go a long time without food and water. Considering this happened in the early 19th century, it wouldn't have been terribly difficult to fabricate or at least exaggerate (I can believe that this guy could go quite a while without any nutrition if he was burning so few calories, but 40 days is a bit much) this kind of scenario by either the European doctors or Haridas himself.
Additionally, the first half of your post seems to say that we can't make any claims against this idea without trying it ourselves. This really just seems like a way to stifle debate towards your ideas, Kep, and it's rendered kind of moot anyway by the
burden of proof. Since you're the one making a claim (that body and consciousness can be separated) it is your job to prove that you're right in order to gain support, not my (or anyone else who disagrees with you here) job to prove that you're wrong.
Also, none of this is really following the scientific method either way, despite other things you say in the first half of the post. All scientific evidence still points to the idea that your consciousness is gone permanently when you're dead. Again, anecdotal evidence from some 19th century monk and/or the European doctors who observed him doesn't really cut it in terms of scientific evidence.
I'm really sorry if I sound like an asshole here. Your arguments here just don't make all that much sense, and don't really talk about reincarnation in the first place, just separating body and consciousness (neither of which I personally believe in, just to be clear). And, again, they don't truly mention any scientific evidence.