Absorption versus Reincarnation Theory

Rating: 10/10 (25 March 2019)

WARNING: THIS POST CONTAINS SPOILERS
I think "The Shining" is a masterpiece of psychological horror. The best ever made with perhaps the exception of Robert Wise's "The Haunting". The two films have many parallels. But there is one thing that always gnaws at me which is the perspective in which to view it...the reincarnation theory versus the absorption theory.
Kubrick has stated that he viewed Jack as being a reincarnation of a previous official at the Overlook hotel (or guest) and that the hotel focuses on Jack to reclaim him. To me, this point of view doesn't make a lot of sense. I think it's a much stronger film when viewed that the hotel is after Danny, but ends up absorbing Jack and here's my reasoning.
First, the situation about Charles (Delbert) Grady, who was the caretaker during the winter months in 1970. As explained in the film, Grady goes mad with cabin fever and kills his wife and two daughters. In 1980, Jack Torrance comes along to apply for the post. Presumably, there were other caretakers over the past 9 years to which nothing happened and they made it out fine. So there would have to be some reason why the Overlook was so interested in Grady and now Torrance. Kubrick took the POV of reincarnation and that the hotel "reclaimed" them. (Note: Kubrick never said that about Grady only Jack, but I think to accept the reincarnation theory, Grady would have to be reincarnated too.)
This doesn't make sense to me. One, because it sure is coincidental, especially when both sets of their children appear to have "shining" talents, and, two, both characters appear to be coming back in the same recognizable form. Having said that, there are ways to explain each one of these issues.
I'm not an expert on reincarnation, but I suppose it's possible that reincarnated persons might be drawn back to the hotel, especially if there was some previous life significance for them, but then why does the hotel want them back? What is so important about them that the hotel wants to keep them? No suggestions are given in the film.
Both characters seem to have children with the shining. We only know that Danny does, but Grady says to Jack that one of his girls hated the Overlook so much she tried to burn it down. I think this implies that at least one of the girls had abilities that made her sensitive to the hotel's energy and it makes sense to me that reincarnated parents might be able to birth children with this gift.
Much harder to explain, is why the reincarnated characters look as they did in their previous life as suggested by the photo at the end. My understanding of reincarnation is that people come back in different bodies, different appearance, so if they did not and they were important figures once at the Overlook, why would none of the current staff recognize them from past photos?
I suppose it can be reasoned that they do look different than in the past, but as viewers, we see them as their original selves throughout. To me, this is a lot of work that the viewer has to do to accept the theory and if they do look as they did in the past, it makes no sense at all.
I think the film is stronger with an absorption POV as it avoids the questions raised above. In this theory the Overlook is after Danny because of his abilities. By absorbing him, the hotel becomes stronger with his talent and if one of Grady's daughters had the shining as well, it would explain why no other caretakers were harmed as there was nothing of interest in them for the Overlook. The hotel "woke up" under Grady and Torrance due to their children's shining, but it could not kill them outright, it had to work through their fathers which is why it needed to possess them.
In the end, Jack is not able to murder Danny, but since he is possessed by the hotel he becomes absorbed by it when he dies and is thus added to the July 4th photo at the end. He is now trapped (apparently happily) in the Overlook's time warp.
In conclusion, I know I have more important things to worry about in life than this issue, but every time I watch this film this debate comes up in me, which is in part why I think it is so brilliant.