Here's a critique of Ven. Ṭhānissaro's The Truth of Rebirth
by Mark Knickelbine:
“The Truth of Rebirth” : A Review, Part I
“The Truth of Rebirth”: A Review, Part 2
“The Truth of Rebirth” : A Review, Part 3
Without giving a detailed critique of Knickelbine's review, I'll just say that I found his criticisms weak primarily due to the weakness of the "secular" hermeneutic founded on the premise that the historical Buddha was either an agnostic or materialist, and that all of the teachings on rebirth found in the Pāli canon are either (i) based on a strategy for teaching morality to people who weren't capable of understanding Gotama's true dhamma, or (ii) were never intended to be interpreted literally, or (iii) were composed by deluded Indians in the centuries after the Buddha's death who weren't capable of accurately retaining and transmitting Gotama's true dhamma.
Unfortunately, this premise is entirely speculative. The methodology of textual criticism is not able and will never be able to demonstrate what the historical Buddha actually taught. This is why a necessary distinction needs to be made between Original Buddhism and Early Buddhism. Original Buddhism refers to the actual oral teachings of the historical Gotama and his immediate disciples. Early Buddhism refers to the early formative pre-sectarian period of Indian Buddhism and the extant textual documents which claim to be records of the Buddha's teachings as remembered by his immediate disciples after his death.
And while we can infer some significant information about the early pre-sectarian period of Indian Buddhism with the help of text-critical analysis of the extant discourses, we will never be able to prove with any degree of certainty which of these doctrines and training rules actually originated with the Buddha himself. What is clearly evident, however, is that teachings pertaining to rebirth, higher and lower realms, and supernormal knowledges are found throughout the discourses and are thoroughly integrated into the thought-world of Early Buddhism. And prior to the modern age, informed as it is by empirical science and a materialist worldview, these teachings on rebirth, etc., were never questioned, denied, or dismissed by any Buddhist school or commentator.