The problem with your article is that it completely fails to account for underlying mechanisms and therefore the implicit assumptions are erroneous. When you begin with erroneous assumptions then no matter how elegant (or otherwise) your math may be, the outcome of that math will inevitably be irrelevant.
Here’s just a tiny number of the incorrect implicit assumptions the article seems to make:
i) the human brain isn’t a highly fallible pattern-recognition machine that because of evolutionary selection pressures makes lots and lots of false positive associations
ii) the human sensory apparatus isn’t a fallible and very partial set of mechanisms that makes plenty of obvious mistakes and leads us to incorrect conclusions about what we believe we are experiencing
iii) human memory isn’t highly partial, highly fallible, and extremely easy to influence
iv) the entire basis for belief in one or more invisible magical creatures can be explained entirely in terms of the cognitive limits and fallibility of the human brain and requires no external factors to account for 100% of all superstitious and hence religious beliefs
v) there has never been the slightest shred of empirical evidence for the existence of one or more invisible magical creatures
vi) notions of soul, afterlife, etc. are self-inconsistent and fall apart the moment you begin to investigate how they would work and the implications of such things were they actually to exist
vii) people have believed in all manner of impossible things (and in backward countries like the USA, Somalia, etc. they still do) but that just proves how fallible the human brain is
viii) the proof-test for the existence of one or more invisible magical creatures that made itself known to humanity is a very, very low bar indeed — yet in no instance in all of recorded history has even this very low threshold been met
Ergo math has nothing to contribute to any discussion about invisible magical creatures, but neuroscience, evolutionary psychology, cosmology, bioenergetics, and simple predicate logic all indicate very clearly that such discussions are a waste of time because invisible magical creatures not only do not exist but in fact cannot exist. Why should we discard everything we know about the way the universe works and all the strong evidence in support of it and all the strong predictive powers of our knowledge, merely because of an internally-inconsistent incoherent myth dating back to a tribe of ignorant goat-herders who lived several millennia ago? We would take such a step only if overwhelming empirical evidence could show that such a step should be justified. As Truzzi said, “extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence.”
Just because most people’s brains don’t function very well when it comes to basic reasoning and consistency-checking (and therefore they are credulous and believe in all manner of nonsense) doesn’t mean we as a culture should abandon the hard-won gains derived from an evidence-based approach. To do so would be to return to the intellectual Dark Ages.
Finally, the notion that if more than one person writes about a myth then this increases the probability of that myth being factually true is naive in the extreme. To take one obvious example, J.K. Rowling wrote a series of books about a fictional character called Harry Potter. Subsequently, thousands of young adults around the world went online to create their own fan fiction about Harry Potter and the Hogwarts world. But it is not coherent to argue that this plethora of stories about Harry therefore makes Harry’s existence in the real world more likely to be a matter of fact.