Now Vlad, you wouldn't be attempting an association fallacy, would you?
It's difficult to deny that many religious claims would be viewed very differently if seen in one, or a small number, of individuals - including your claim of "personal knowledge" of somebody who died 2000 years ago.
"This to me is the true horror of religion, it allows perfectly decent and sane people to believe by the billions what only lunatics could believe on their own. If you wake up tomorrow morning thinking that saying a few Latin words over your pancakes is going to turn them into the body of Elvis Presley - you have lost your mind. But if you think more or less the same thing about a cracker and the body of Jesus you're just a Catholic."
-- Sam Harris
It's an interesting point, and has been dealt with in psychiatry (to an extent), by citing cultural influence. For example, in New Zealand, if a Maori patient tells a psychiatrist that he talks to his ancestors, the psychiatrist will take into account the traditional ancestor reverence practised by Maoris, (whakapapa).
In fact, some psychiatric definitions of 'delusion' exempt traditional beliefs and practices. So if a Western patient claims to have talked to the virgin Mary, this might be covered. I suppose if they claim to be her, they might be concerned.
An example of psychiatric definitions:
A false personal belief that is not subject to reason or contradictory evidence and is not explained by a person's usual cultural and religious concepts (so that, for example, it is not an article of faith).
(from medicine.net).