I'm quite skeptical of the idea that a historian would consider supernatural explanations since, to my mind, they have no explanatory power.
Any help is much appreciated. Thank you.
u/sunagainstgold is busy doing Serious Academic Work right now, but they have written about what are called "functionalist approaches" to supernatural stories before, notably here:
and here:
The basic idea is that historians don't study miracles and try to pass judgment on them; we study what people believed about the miracles, because that's what had an effect on history. "Was Joan of Arc a saint" is neither here nor there; "why did people believe Joan was a saint" is the interesting question.
In my opinion this is pretty accurate for the following reason:
Inside the historical community is a consens, that no history is written in a vacuum, meaning any work on a historic topic is influenced by the ideas and convictions of the historian working on it.
In this context the quote advises the historian to look for natural explanations, as these can offer more insight into the motivation and or circumstances of a historic event. ( As you said)
However if no natural explanation can be found you are free to argue in favour of a supernatural one as long as you stay in compliance with the rest of the standards of the historic discipline.
This does not mean, that the community is going to agree with you but it opens up a scientific debate.