TA
I would contend that whilst phenomena are open to all equally, explanations only agree to the extent that metaphysical worldviews overlap. In the case of science, where metaphysical naturalism and methodological naturalism meet, there is bound to be a shared approach, and most disagreements will be on matters of detail.
The physical Resurrection is, or isn’t, an objective phenomenon - but as a one-off, it is only amenable to historical investigation rathe than scientific. So let’s take a repeated, if not repeatable, phenomenon: claims about miracles of healing in response to prayer. Even in the west, most Christian churches will have experienced such things.
The patient of Christian doctor reports resolution of his (angiographically confirmed) anginal chest pain in response to prayer. The non-Christian specialist agrees that the angiogram is now normal. But the only reason the two physicians can agree on the probable explanation of the phenomenon is if the Christian makes a rule of practising methodological naturalism, despite his theism, at work (or because his worldview excludes miracles, which is more like metaphysical naturalism).
I was that Christian physician - I knew the patient, and believed not only the angiogram but the patient’s account, and its meaning. The consultant believed the angio, cancelled the bypass op, and said he had no idea how the thing had happened. Maybe, if pushed he’d have opted for “spontaneous resolution”, whatever that means. I’ve heard other cases where the “only explanation” was that the original angio must have been mysteriously mixed up with somebody else’s. But the point is, the same phenomenon is explained differently according to something more fundamental than methodology.