I’m not half-way finished reading the Udana, and I’ve already encountered such fanciful elements as a reptilian humanoid that shields the Buddha from rain, nymphs that inhabit a heavenly realm, devatas that offer alms to monks, a woman pregnant with the same child for seven years, etc.
It’s hard for me to take these elements literally, and I wouldn’t be surprised if they crept into the texts over time during their oral stage. This doesn’t mean the texts are without value or truth.
An argument sometimes made for the historicity of the Pali suttas, to the exclusion of the Mahayana sutras, is their purported realism. Is that really a fair dichotomy?