I don't see how it would make more sense tbh. What it looks like is: they're dead, they're gone. Now things aren't always what they look like, I get that. But there's no evidence whatsoever of rebirth, aside from people claiming to have been reborn without providing any evidence.
I believe it's a psychological thing, born of the unwillingness to accept both the end of a close person and the end of oneself. A beloved person who died "lives on in our minds" and it is comforting to think they somehow actually live on. It is also comforting to most that they don't just end when they die themselves.
Well yes, on a molecular basis decomposed parts of our brains might end up in a future person's brain, but why would that somehow make our personality/consciousness reappear in them? Also, it's impossible that all of our brain matter is recycled in just one other person's brain. It'd be just a few molecules randomly ending up in a few different people, and that would hardly cause our personality/consciousness to reappear.
The crux is that it implies that our consciousness is not created by the brain. That there's some sort of soul or essence or whatever to our personality/consciousness that is independent of the physical brain. If we're talking about rebirth, something has to be restored. But what is that something? Personality?
There are many accounts of people losing their previous personality after suffering brain damage. Loving, caring people suddenly become apathetic and almost sociopaths. This not only strongly supports the notion that our personality is a product of the physical brain -- if we're assuming that there's some sort of immortalised personality after death, it raises the question: which of these persons is preserved? The earlier or the later one?