Critics of the supernatural often speculate that alleged miraculous healings are instead naturalistic healings of a psychosomatic nature. But many types of healing and recipients of healing are poor candidates for that hypothesis. Craig Keener gives many examples in his book, Miracles (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2011).
In an earlier post, I addressed modern cases of raising the dead. How many skeptics of the miraculous would argue that dead people can be healed psychosomatically?
I've also discussed reports of the healing of amputees. Again, would skeptics argue that such healing can occur psychosomatically?
And it's not just an issue of what can happen anyway. The issue is what's the best explanation.
What about miracles among atheists, agnostics, deists, or Christians who aren't expecting a miracle to occur, for example? I gave some examples in an earlier post on hostile corroboration of modern miracles. Keener provides many other cases in his book: atheists and agnostics converted through the experience of one or more miracles (n. 171 on 677, n. 202 on 681), miracles that were sought, but occurred differently than expected (596), etc.