Thing is, Aku, that you can filter initial reports and anecdotes against the database of current knowledge to check for plausible hypotheses for the likely cause. The simplest, most plausible hypothesis is generally taken to be the most likely cause. Examining your report, there are well-known precedents for every part of it - we know hearing voices is not unusual in the kind of circumstances you describe, and we know that the initial memory laid down is likely to be unreliable, given the situation, and that memories of experiental 'stories' are generally refined and exaggerated over time such that they diverge from the original experience. This kind of distortion happens to all of us, whether we realise it or not. See
How Much Of Your Memory Is True.
The plausibility of this hypothesis - that your report is fully consistent with well evidenced unreliability of brain function, astronomically outweighs the plausibility of the hypothesis that your report is of mysterious supranormal or paranormal forces or spirits for which there is no good evidence. You may not like it, and the mundane explanation isn't so romantic, but that's just the way goes. That's the problem with anecdotes, they are simply unreliable.
I have stories about events that I could have sworn were accurate, that a friend or colleague is equally sure happened quite differently - in a couple, the difference is about which of us was the protagonist... At least one of us has to be seriously wrong.
Our memories evolved with the rest of us - they are only as good as they need to be for individual and group success, and that turns out to be a lot flakier than we thought until recently.