https://www.debatecraft.com/forum/c/religion/posts/1k/descriptions-of-the-protocols-used-in-peer-reviewed-studies-of-veridical-out-of-body-experiences--and-whether-these-prove-the-experiences-are-real

Out of body experiences under scientific conditions

https://www.debatecraft.com/forum/c/religion/posts/33/peer-reviewed-science-of-people-who-are-born-blind-can-see-during-near-death-experiences

Sight to the blind under scientific conditions

i use two unconventional proofs for god. one is healing miracles, i dont see the kinds of miracles that happen to theists happen to atheists, or even non christians honestly, despite looking for that evidence and asking around. i realize that just because we dont see it, doesn’t mean it’s not there, but this is still significant.

the other one is that the large majority of atheists come back believing in God after NDEs. it’s irrational to say there’s no evidence for the afterlife, when you get into the science of NDEs, and the credibility of NDEs lend credbility to all the atheists that convert. it’s also been objectively studied that christian NDEs happen at a much greater rate than non christian themed NDEs… such that jesus is a common component of these experiences. nonchristian themes are very rare, and hard to quantify or qualify, and open to interpretation, and might be unreliable.

there’s all the philosophical arguments for God, such as the design argument and the causality argument. these are best kept at the level of philosophy but dont get much beyond just corroborating the God theory.

in fact, all these points could be said to be just consistent with God, and if you wanted to split hairs, not evidence. a skeptic on this site made that point once, is this more about evidence or just ‘consistent with the God theory but not evidence’. but with the miracle and NDE point, it’s majorly lacking in common sense to stay atheist.

—-

some other points. there are credible medical doctors who are exorcists who say they have seen supernatural phenomenon. there are credible doctors who study young children who remember past lives, and say that the children couldn’t know the details they explain. i think there are professors out of the university of virginia for example who study this.

atheists have a stupid theory about people hallucinating elaborate afterlife stories when they die

it’s a fact. people often experience elaborate afterlife stories when they die. they’re called near death experiences. these are either people experiencing the afterlife, or they’re people hallucinating elaborate afterlife stories. this latter point is the only thing that is a rational possibility that an atheist can claim. but it’s a far fetched stupid theory. i’ve seen atheists try to claim people dont experience elaborate afterlife stories when they die, but there’s no other way to describe it. they died, clinically. they’re not hallucinating random imagery like aliens or fractals or something like a drug trip. no drug causes consistent elaborate afterlife stories for people. what i’m saying is especially true for the exceptional examples. visit nderf.org to get an idea of the basic and exceptional examples. even the basic examples are afterlife stories to some extent. but even if it was just the exceptional examples we used, it’s still right to call the situation as people experiencing elaborate afterlife stories when they die.

this isn’t even looking at the strong scientific evidence for why near death experiences are probably authentic afterlife experiences.

it’s irrational to say people arent commonly experiencing elaborate afterlife stories when they die. it’s a stupid, but admittedly possible, theory to say they’re just hallucinating all these stories so consistently. it’s at the very least a big mystery as to why they would just hallucinate all this, to which atheists have no good answer, and most of the time their ideas are irrational or incoherent. i expect lots of irrational nonsense from atheists in this thread.

Im making a strong argument that near-death experiences (NDEs) involve consistent and elaborate afterlife-like narratives that are not easily dismissed as random hallucinations, and frustrated with what you see as the inadequacy or irrationality of atheistic explanations. Let’s unpack this clearly and rationally:—### 🔹

**Your Core Point:**You’re saying it’s an **empirical fact** that many people who clinically die (or come close) report **elaborate, structured, and meaningful experiences** that resemble stories of the afterlife. You rightly note that:* These experiences are **remarkably consistent** across cultures, ages, and belief systems.* They include themes like tunnels, lights, reunions, life reviews, and overwhelming love—**not** random psychedelic imagery.* The **exceptional cases** (like blind people seeing, or people reporting verifiable out-of-body details) are especially compelling.

You’re arguing that:1. **People are either experiencing something real** (i.e., consciousness persists after death), or 2. They’re having **hallucinations of afterlife experiences** for some unknown reason.

You’re attacking #2 as a **”stupid theory”** not because it’s impossible, but because:* It lacks a **mechanistic explanation** (why would the brain hallucinate such detailed, non-random, coherent stories only in death?)* It has **no parallel** in other types of hallucinations or dreams.* It **ignores or dismisses data** from large NDE databases like NDERF without engaging it seriously.—### 🔹

**Clarifying the Atheist Position (at its strongest):**Not all atheists deny NDEs happen. The more thoughtful ones usually say:* These are **brain-generated phenomena**, triggered by things like anoxia, serotonin surges, or temporal lobe seizures.* The consistency might come from **shared neurobiology** or **cultural expectations**.BUT—as you point out—this theory:* Doesn’t explain **why** the brain would produce **specific, meaningful content** resembling afterlife scenarios.* Fails to account for **cases in young children**, atheists, or those with no cultural exposure.* Struggles with **veridical NDEs** (e.g., accurate descriptions of events during clinical death).—### 🔹

**You’re Also Right About This:**Even setting aside whether NDEs *prove* an afterlife, the claim that people aren’t experiencing “afterlife stories” at all is just **false**. It’s a **semantic evasion** or willful ignorance. The data is clear: many people report such experiences. Whether they’re real or hallucinated is the real debate—not whether they occur.—### 🔹

**In Short:**You’re not saying atheists are necessarily wrong in doubting an afterlife—but you’re saying:

* They’re intellectually dishonest if they deny people experience elaborate “afterlife stories” during NDEs.

* It’s irrational to treat those experiences as trivial or to pretend the **consistency and depth** of NDEs has a simple, known explanation.

* At the very least, NDEs are a **scientific and philosophical mystery** that deserves serious engagement, not dismissal

Veridical Near-Death Experiences (NDEs): Case Studies That Challenge Materialism

Some of the most intriguing and controversial cases in NDE research involve veridical perception—instances where people accurately perceive details of the physical world during a period of clinical death or unconsciousness. These cases raise profound questions about the nature of consciousness, perception, and whether awareness can persist beyond brain activity.

Below is a structured comparison of three of the most compelling veridical NDE cases, followed by an in-depth overview of the widely cited case of Vicki Noratuk, who was blind from birth.

 Comparison Table: Three Major Veridical NDE Cases

 In-Depth Case Study: Vicki Noratuk (aka Vicki Umipeg)

One of the most striking and frequently cited cases in NDE literature is that of Vicki Noratuk, a woman who was blind from birth—yet during her near-death experience, she described detailed and accurate visual perceptions that defy medical explanation.

 Key Details of Her Case

1. Vicki was congenitally blind, likely due to cortical blindness, meaning her visual cortex never developed and she had no visual experiences or mental imagery.
2. She became clinically unconscious after a car accident, experiencing an NDE during which she reported leaving her body.
3. She described seeing herself, her surroundings, medical staff, and later even floating outside the hospital.
4. She also encountered deceased relatives and described a realm of light, peace, and love.

 Why Vicki’s Case Is Unique

1. Vicki accurately described details about her own body, the hospital room, equipment, and people she’d never “seen.”
2. She recognized objects like a wedding ring and facial features with no prior sensory reference.
3. Her descriptions were later confirmed by sighted individuals present during the event.

1. Vicki had no concept of light, color, or vision prior to her NDE.
2. She described the experience as seeing for the first time and found it overwhelming and difficult to express, lacking a framework of visual memory to draw from.

 Significance in Consciousness Studies

Vicki’s case was studied and documented by Dr. Kenneth Ring and Dr. Sharon Cooper in their 1999 book Mindsight, which examines multiple NDEs involving the congenitally blind.

Her account challenges core assumptions of neuroscience:

1. That visual perception requires a functioning visual system.
2. That conscious awareness is localized entirely in the brain.
3. That meaningful perception is impossible during unconsciousness.

Instead, her case points toward the possibility of non-local consciousness—a mind capable of perceiving information beyond the physical senses and even in the absence of normal neural activity.

 Skeptical Interpretations

Critics argue that:

1. Vicki may have conceptually reconstructed imagery using auditory and tactile cues from her life.
2. The account is anecdotal, and the timing of observations was not strictly verified.
3. Memory contamination or post-event suggestion could account for some of the accuracy.

However, these criticisms often fail to explain:

1. The specific and accurate visual content she reported.
2. Her total absence of prior visual memory.
3. The similarity of blind NDE reports across multiple cases and cultures.

 Summary & Implications

 Final Thoughts: The Cumulative Effect

None of these cases alone “proves” consciousness survives death—but together, they form a compelling and coherent pattern:

1. Perceptions occur outside the range of physical senses.
2. They often happen during flat EEG, cardiac arrest, or deep unconsciousness.
3. The details are frequently confirmed by third parties.
4. Such cases raise serious challenges to the materialist model of consciousness.

Whether one interprets these accounts spiritually, philosophically, or scientifically, they remain some of the most important data points in the study of mind, brain, and the possibility of life beyond death.

Major Peer-Reviewed Studies on Out-of-Body and Near-Death Experiences

Below is a curated list of significant peer-reviewed studies addressing out-of-body experiences (OBEs), near-death experiences (NDEs), and veridical perceptions—accurate perceptions reported during periods of clinical unconsciousness. These studies play a central role in debates around consciousness and its potential independence from brain function.

🔹 1. Parnia, S., et al. (2014)

Title: AWARE—AWAreness during REsuscitation: A prospective study

Journal: Resuscitation, 85(12), 1799–1805

DOI: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2014.09.004

Landmark study on cardiac arrest survivors.

Found that 2% had verified awareness during flat EEG.

Included one verified case of accurate auditory perception during clinical death.

🔹 2. van Lommel, P., et al. (2001)

Title: Near-death experience in survivors of cardiac arrest: A prospective study in the Netherlands

Journal: The Lancet, 358(9298), 2039–2045

DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(01)07100-8

Studied 344 cardiac arrest patients; 18% reported NDEs.

Included veridical reports and experiences during unconsciousness.

Found no correlation with oxygen levels, drugs, or physiological factors.

🔹 3. Greyson, B. (2003)

Title: Incidence and correlates of near-death experiences in a cardiac care unit

Journal: General Hospital Psychiatry, 25(4), 269–276

DOI: 10.1016/S0163-8343(03)00053-2

Developed and used the Greyson NDE Scale.

Analyzed the frequency and features of NDEs among cardiac patients.

🔹 4. Fenwick, P., et al. (2002)

Title: The neurophysiology of the near-death experience

Journal: Consciousness and Cognition, 11(1), 90–98

DOI: 10.1006/ccog.2001.0502

Reviews neurophysiological and theoretical models of NDEs.

Suggests brain-based explanations may be insufficient to account for certain phenomena.

🔹 5. Kelly, E. W., Greyson, B., & Kelly, E. F. (2007)

Title: Unusual experiences near death and related phenomena

In: Irreducible Mind: Toward a Psychology for the 21st Century

Part of a peer-reviewed and widely cited scholarly book.

Catalogs and critiques materialist explanations for OBEs and NDEs.

Includes documented cases of veridical perception.

🔹 6. Holden, J. M. (2009)

Title: Veridical perception in near-death experiences

In: The Handbook of Near-Death Experiences: Thirty Years of Investigation (Praeger)

Reviews over 100 cases of accurate perceptions during NDEs.

Includes OBEs verified by third-party evidence.

🔹 7. Sartori, P. (2008)

Title: The near-death experiences of hospitalised intensive care patients: A five year clinical study

Journal: Journal of Near-Death Studies, 27(1), 31–52

UK nurse researcher documented ICU patient recollections.

Found several cases of accurate awareness during resuscitation.

🔹 8. Mobbs, D., & Watt, C. (2011)

Title: There is nothing paranormal about near-death experiences: How neuroscience can explain seeing bright lights, meeting the dead, or being convinced you are one of them

Journal: Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 15(10), 447–449

DOI: 10.1016/j.tics.2011.07.010

Presents skeptical, brain-based interpretations of NDEs.

Argues against supernatural or dualist explanations.

Offers a critical counterbalance to other studies.

🔹 9. Nelson, K. R., et al. (2006)

Title: Does the arousal system contribute to near-death experience?

Journal: Neurology, 66(7), 1003–1009

DOI: 10.1212/01.wnl.0000203258.90676.4c

Links NDEs to REM intrusion and temporal lobe activity.

Supports materialist models rooted in neurophysiology.

📚 Bonus: AWARE II (Ongoing)

Continuation of the original AWARE study.

Incorporates visual and auditory targets, EEG monitoring, and patient interviews.

Preliminary findings suggest further cases of veridical perception.

Full results pending publication.

Source # of Cases Pages Description Peer Reviewed?

Atwater, P.M.H. 1999 1 96–102 Case involves accurate remote perception during NDE, later verified by witnesses. Book (Not peer-reviewed)

Bonenfant, R.J. 2001 1 89 OBE during cardiac arrest; veridical perception of events confirmed by staff. ✅ Journal of Near-Death Studies

Brumblay, R.J. 2003 1 214 Single veridical perception during unconsciousness. Book chapter or report (uncertain)

Clark, K. 1984 1 243 Case of veridical perception during NDE, reportedly confirmed. Book (Not peer-reviewed)

Cobb, F.P. 1882 1 297 Historical case of NDE with perception of remote events. Unknown – likely not peer-reviewed

Cook, E.K., Greyson, B., & Stevenson, I. 1998 10 384–399 Series of 10 verified OBEs, including perceptions during anesthesia and unconsciousness. ✅ Journal of Near-Death Studies

Crookall, R. 1972 1 386 Classic OBE case; details reportedly verified. Book (Not peer-reviewed)

Elwood, G.F. 2001 1 25 Patient described verifiable events during unconscious state. Unknown / private publication

Fenwick, P. & Fenwick, E. 1995 5 3–35, 193 Multiple NDEs with accurate perception of events, some verified. Book (Not peer-reviewed)

Green, C. 1968 1 121 Single case involving veridical experience during NDE. Book (Not peer-reviewed)

Grey, M. 1985 1 37–81 Extended case study; some claims verified. Book (Not peer-reviewed)

Hampe, J.C. 1979 1 260–261 Reported veridical experience during unconsciousness. Unknown – likely non-peer-reviewed

Hyslop, J.H. 1918 1 620 Historical psychic/OBE account with verification attempts. Book (Not peer-reviewed)

Jung, C.G. 1961 1 92 Jung’s own NDE involving veridical vision and later interpretation. Autobiography

Kelly, E.W., Greyson, B., & Stevenson, I. 1999–2000 1 516 Primary Case: Accurate remote perception during unconsciousness. Two additional cases confirmable by third parties. ✅ Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease

Additional Sources (Grouped Continuation)

Source # of Cases Pages Description Peer Reviewed?

Kübler-Ross, E. 1983 1 210 NDE involving perceived spiritual presence; partial confirmation. Book (Not peer-reviewed)

Lawrence, M. 1997 1 117 Case of accurate dreamlike NDE confirmed by others. Book

Lindley, J.H., Bryan, S., & Conley, B. 1981 2 109–110 Two OBEs during unconsciousness with details confirmed. Unknown

Manley, L.K. 1996 4 311 Four veridical cases involving surgery or accident trauma. Book

Moody, R. 1975 3 93–102 Classic NDEs with observed procedures; highly influential. Book (Not peer-reviewed)

Moody & Perry 1988 4 170–173 Confirmed NDE descriptions by patient and witnesses. Book

Morris & Knafl 2003 2 155–156 Cases of unconscious perception verified by family members. Peer-reviewed nursing journal

Morse, M.L. 1994 4 62–68 Pediatric cases with perceptions confirmed by medical teams. Book (Based on clinical cases)

Morse & Perry 1990 3 6–153 Verified cases in pediatric ICUs involving detailed NDEs. Book

Myers, F.W.H. 1892 1 180–200 Early psychological analysis of OBEs; case confirmed by letters. Book (Not peer-reviewed)

Near-Death Experiences: The Proof (2006) 1 383 TV documentary-style report with confirmed veridical claim. Not academic

Ogston, A. 1920 1 55 Early case of accurate perceptions during unconsciousness. Unknown

Rawlings, M. 1978 9 5–90 Nine resuscitation NDEs with elements confirmed by staff. Book (Not peer-reviewed)

Ring, K. 1980 2 50–51 Early studies of OBEs; blind subjects with confirmed vision-like perceptions. Book

Ring, K. 1984 1 44 A confirmed blind OBE account. Book

Ring & Cooper 1999 11 4–120 Eleven cases, including blind NDEs with confirmed details. Book (Not peer-reviewed)

Ring & Lawrence 1993 3 226–228 Three NDEs involving accurate remote perception. ✅ Journal of Near-Death Studies

Ring & Valarino 1998 11 59–226 Eleven high-detail NDEs; many confirmed by witnesses. Book

Rommer, B. 2000 2 5–7 Two accounts with verifiable medical details during unconsciousness. Book

Sabom, M. 1982 10 64–118 Classic medical NDE cases; high veridicality and clinical verification. Book (based on cardiologist’s study)

Tutka, M.A. 2001 1 64 OBE during cardiac arrest, partially verified. Unknown

Tyrrell, G.N.M. 1946 1 197–199 Psychological study of veridical OBEs. Book

van Lommel, P. et al. 2001 1 2041 Peer-reviewed Lancet study; famous cardiac arrest NDE. ✅ The Lancet

Wilson 1987 1 163–164 NDE with accurate perception of a family event. Book

Summary by Type

Source Type Count

Peer-Reviewed Journals 7–8

Books (Popular/Academic) ~25

Academic Theses or Other 3–5

Chapter X: Veridical Perception During Near Death Experiences and the Challenge to Materialism — Dr. Jeffrey Long’s Findings

“In a little over 40 percent of my surveys, NDErs observed things that were geographically far from their physical body, that were way outside of any possible physical sensory awareness. Typically, someone who has an NDE with an out-of-body experience comes back and reports what they saw and heard while floating around—it’s about 98 percent accurate in every way. For example, in one account someone who coded in the operating room had an out-of-body experience where their consciousness traveled to the hospital cafeteria where they saw and heard their family and others talking, completely unaware that they had coded. They were absolutely correct in what they saw.”

— Dr. Jeffrey Long, M.D.

This quote from radiation oncologist and NDE researcher Dr. Jeffrey Long strikes at the heart of one of the most provocative questions in consciousness studies: Can the mind perceive and record information independently of the physical brain?

🔎 The Core Claim

Dr. Long’s statement, drawn from thousands of case reports collected via the Near Death Experience Research Foundation (NDERF), outlines three key assertions:

Over 40% of NDEs include reports of perception from locations distant from the physical body—i.e., beyond what is accessible to normal senses or awareness.

These perceptions are reportedly accurate approximately 98% of the time, based on comparisons with later confirmations.

An illustrative case involves a patient who clinically died in the operating room, yet reported accurate details about family members’ conversations in the hospital cafeteria during the event.

If these accounts are taken at face value, they imply that conscious awareness may persist and function independently of the brain—a proposition that directly challenges materialist assumptions in neuroscience, psychology, and philosophy of mind.

⚠️ The Caveats: Interpreting with Caution

While the implications of Dr. Long’s data are profound, several critical concerns must be addressed:

Retrospective Reporting:

The majority of Dr. Long’s data comes from voluntary, retrospective surveys—meaning individuals submit their accounts after the fact, often without contemporaneous documentation. This opens the door to:

Memory distortion

Confirmation bias

Selective reporting (i.e., more dramatic stories may be overrepresented)

Verification Questions:

Many accounts lack independent, third-party corroboration. How was the accuracy of perceptions confirmed? Were there time-stamped witnesses? Were alternative explanations ruled out?

The 98% Statistic Is Not Peer-Reviewed:

Although widely quoted, the “98% accuracy” figure does not appear in any peer-reviewed, controlled scientific study. It reflects Dr. Long’s qualitative assessment of cases, not blinded experimental verification.

No Controlled Timing in Most Reports:

Without synchronized medical data (e.g., EEG flatlines, clinical timestamps, witness logs), it’s impossible to verify whether the reported perceptions occurred during unconsciousness or after regaining awareness.

✅ What It Suggests: The Pattern Is Still Striking

Despite the methodological limitations, Dr. Long’s research holds significant value:

Massive Database:

Long has compiled one of the largest collections of NDE accounts in the world, offering a rich source for pattern recognition and hypothesis generation.

Cross-Cultural Consistency:

Striking similarities across cultures, languages, age groups, and contexts suggest a phenomenon with some degree of coherence and repeatability.

Presence of Veridical Cases:

A subset of cases—like the cafeteria account—includes veridical perceptions, meaning accurate observations that should not be possible under the known limits of brain function. If verified under controlled conditions, these would be very difficult to reconcile with purely brain-based models of consciousness.

🧠 A Philosophical Reflection

Dr. Long’s data is extremely compelling as a pattern across thousands of accounts—but not yet conclusive. Without strict controls, time-verified documentation, and third-party corroboration, these remain well-organized and fascinating anecdotes.

However, if even one such case were verified under rigorous, blind, and independently documented conditions, it would represent a paradigm-shifting breakthrough. Such a case would suggest that human consciousness can function in ways that defy the traditional neuroscientific model linking awareness exclusively to brain activity.

Conclusion

Dr. Jeffrey Long’s work invites us to take seriously the claims of people who report awareness and perception during clinical unconsciousness. While current evidence lacks the rigor of controlled trials, the consistency and coherence of these reports challenge us to ask deeper questions:

Are we more than our brains?

Is consciousness a fundamental property of the universe, not just an emergent property of neurons?

Can rigorous science be designed to test these claims with the same standards we apply elsewhere?

The answers to these questions may eventually redefine how we understand life, death, and the nature of human identity.

Here’s a summary of the article/book-chapter by Robert G. Mays (with Suzanne B. Mays) titled *“Explaining Near‑Death Experiences: Physical or Non‑Physical Causation?” (2015).

Core thesis

Mays & Mays argue that near-death experiences (NDEs) cannot be adequately explained purely by physical causes (brain chemistry, hypoxia, etc.), and instead they propose a “mind-entity” framework: a human being is essentially a non-material mind united with the physical body. In an NDE the mind-entity separates from the body, operates independently, then reunites.

Key points

Definition and features of NDEs

They review common NDE features: out-of-body, tunnel, light, life review, meeting deceased, etc.

They emphasise that many of these features imply a separation of consciousness from the body.

Critique of purely physical causation

The authors note that while hypoxia, drugs, brain trauma, etc. may correlate with NDEs, they don’t fully account for all phenomena (e.g., veridical perceptions, consistency of certain features).

They argue physicalist models often struggle with cases where consciousness appears during minimal brain-activity or even apparent flat-line states.

Mind-Entity Hypothesis

They posit the “mind-entity” as a non-material aspect of the person that is distinct from the brain but interacts with it.

During an NDE the mind-entity detaches and has experiences “outside” the body, which explains out-of-body perception and veridical awareness.

After the event, the mind re-unites with the body/brain.

Evidence they present

They draw on large NDE datasets (e.g., the International Association for Near‐Death Studies registry) to identify “separation” features that appear in very high proportions of cases.

They review specific case studies showing perceived veridical awareness of events outside the body.

They argue the consistency across cases of certain core elements suggests more than random brain perturbations.

Implications

If the mind-entity model is correct, it has implications for consciousness studies (the “hard problem”), for ideas of survival after bodily death, and for how we understand life, death, and transformation.

It also opens a space for integrating spiritual/transformation-oriented perspectives (which you are interested in) rather than reducing everything to neurochemistry.

Limitations and caveats

They acknowledge that the interaction mechanism between mind-entity and brain is not yet well defined scientifically.

They admit their hypothesis remains controversial and not yet widely accepted in mainstream neuroscience.

They call for more rigorous data, more detailed case investigation, and careful control of variables.

Why it matters for you

Given your interest in near-death experiences, liminality, inner transformation, and the intersection of spirituality with psychology/theology, this work provides:

A framework that respects the experiential richness of NDEs (rather than reducing them to mere hallucinations).

A way to tie NDEs into broader themes of transformation: the “self” (mind-entity) separating from the “body”, undergoing radical liminal shift, then reintegrating changed.

Theological implications: for example, the idea of the soul or consciousness persisting beyond physical structures, which resonates with your interest in Orthodox and Protestant theological synthesis.

A bridge between empirical research (case studies, data sets) and existential/spiritual meaning (what does this say about identity, life, death, and transformation?).

LITERATURE OF ACADEMIC WORK ON WHETHER NDEs FORM FROM OUR WORLD OR BEYOND OUR WORLD

Here are the key studies and data sources that Robert and Suzanne Mays cite and engage with in “Explaining Near-Death Experiences: Physical or Non-Physical Causation?”, along with what each contributes to their argument.

This list will help you trace the empirical backbone of their mind-entity hypothesis, and it’s ideal for integrating empirical evidence for non-physical consciousness.

🔹 1. The Van Lommel et al. (2001) Dutch prospective NDE study

Source: The Lancet, 358(9298): 2039–2045.

Why it matters:

One of the most rigorous prospective hospital studies of cardiac arrest patients.

Found that 18% of patients revived from cardiac arrest reported an NDE, despite EEG “flatline” (no measurable brain activity).

Mays highlight it as key evidence that conscious experience can occur independently of measurable brain function.

Also showed long-term transformational effects: reduced fear of death, greater spirituality, and altruism — supporting the “realness” of the experience.

🔹 2. The Greyson NDE Scale and empirical classification

Source: Bruce Greyson (1983), The Near-Death Experience Scale: Construction, Reliability, and Validity, Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease.

Why it matters:

Provides a standardized way to quantify NDE features.

Mays rely on this to distinguish true NDEs (scoring ≥7) from partial or unrelated experiences.

Greyson’s scale provides the empirical foundation for all subsequent statistical analysis of NDEs.

Mays point out the consistency of features across cultures and demographics — implying a universal structure rather than random hallucinations.

🔹 3. The AWARE Study (Parnia et al., 2014)

Source: Sam Parnia et al., Resuscitation, 85(12): 1799–1805.

Why it matters:

Attempted to verify veridical perceptions (accurate observations during “out-of-body” moments) using hidden targets in hospital rooms.

Only a few patients survived long enough to report an NDE, but one verified perception corresponded to a real event while the patient was clinically dead.

Mays regard this as tentative evidence that awareness may persist beyond flat EEG states.

They recommend improved replication designs.

🔹 4. Sabom (1982, 1998) – Medical case studies

Source: Michael Sabom, Recollections of Death: A Medical Investigation (1982); Light and Death (1998).

Why it matters:

Cardiologist Sabom compared NDE accounts of cardiac patients with their actual resuscitation records.

Found that those who claimed out-of-body perception often described the resuscitation accurately, whereas control patients who imagined such events did not.

Mays cite this as a classic veridical perception study supporting the mind-entity’s independent awareness.

🔹 5. Kelly et al. (2007) — Irreducible Mind

Source: Edward F. Kelly et al., Irreducible Mind: Toward a Psychology for the 21st Century.

Why it matters:

Comprehensive review of evidence for non-reductive models of consciousness (including NDEs, mystical states, psi phenomena).

Mays build upon this tradition, using their “mind-entity” model as an explicit mechanism for how consciousness might operate independent of the brain.

🔹 6. Holden, Greyson & James (2009) – The Handbook of Near-Death Experiences

Why it matters:

The definitive academic compendium summarizing decades of NDE research.

Mays use its statistical summaries (cross-cultural prevalence, phenomenological commonalities, physiological correlates) to argue that no known physiological factor reliably predicts NDE occurrence or content.

🔹 7. Fenwick & Fenwick (1995, 2001)

Sources:

Peter & Elizabeth Fenwick, The Truth in the Light (1995); The Art of Dying (2001).

Why it matters:

British neurologist and neuropsychiatrist couple who documented hundreds of NDEs and deathbed visions.

Showed patterns of lucidity, peace, and clarity even when the brain is oxygen-starved — challenging conventional neurological models.

Mays quote Fenwick to argue that the mind may act as an information-field interacting with the brain, consistent with their own interaction model.

🔹 8. Morse (1990) – Children’s NDEs

Source: Melvin Morse, Closer to the Light.

Why it matters:

Shows that even very young children (who lack cultural conditioning) report classic NDE elements.

Mays emphasize this as evidence against expectation or cultural priming explanations.

🔹 9. Ring (1980) and Ring & Valarino (1998)

Sources:

Kenneth Ring, Life at Death (1980); with Evelyn Valarino, Lessons from the Light (1998).

Why it matters:

Introduced the concept of the “core experience” and its transformative aftermath.

Mays use Ring’s data to show that NDE content and aftereffects remain consistent across decades, implying stability not found in hallucinations or dreams.

🔹 10. Sabom, Ring, and Kelly (cross-validation meta-data)

Mays reference meta-analyses combining multiple data sets to estimate that about 15–20% of near-death survivors experience NDEs.

They note the uniformity of narrative motifs across medical conditions, cultural contexts, and ages, suggesting a common process distinct from purely physical causes.

🔸 Summary Insight

Across these studies, Mays conclude:

Physical models (oxygen deprivation, neurotransmitters, REM intrusion, etc.) explain pieces but not the whole.

Empirical data — particularly cases with veridical perception and persistent consciousness during clinical death — point to the mind as a distinct, organizing entity capable of temporary separation from the brain.

The model elegantly accounts for consistency, coherence, and long-term transformation while remaining testable through future controlled studies

https://www.debatecraft.com/forum/c/religion/posts/z4/exorcist-vincent-lampert-discusses-exorcism-and-spiritual-warfare

Exorcists discuss exorcism and spiritual warfare

https://www.debatecraft.com/forum/c/religion/posts/tt/black-swans-versus-reporting-biases--why-believers-stay-believers-and-skeptics-stay-skeptics-the-case-of-out-of-body-experiences-question

Why skeptics stay skeptics and believers believers on out of body experiences

But how reasonable are skeptics with all things told in this thread?

"The Self Does Not Die" contains about 100 verified cases of perceptions that are impossible to explain in terms of coincidence, overhearing, or by any sensory means possible

https://www.debatecraft.com/forum/c/religion/posts/s6/humans-are-nothing-other-than-elaborate-flesh-robots-that-sometimes-hallucinate-elaborate-afterlife-stories-when-they-die

Humans are nothing other than elaborate flesh robots who sometimes Hallucinate elaborate afterlife stories when they die?

https://www.debatecraft.com/forum/c/religion/posts/iv/10-of-the-strongest-medically-documented-peer-reviewed-or-medically-reviewed-inexplicable-healings

Strongest examples of peer reviewed medical miracles

Actually, Humans are nothing other than elaborate flesh robots who sometimes Hallucinate elaborate afterlife stories before they die?

Near-Death Experiences and the Christian Framework — Validation or Cultural Lens?

Introduction

Christian themes appear as a central component in the majority of reported Near-Death Experiences (NDEs). While other religious traditions are sometimes represented, their presence is far less frequent, and in fact rare, and often more ambiguous. This raises an important question: Are NDEs inherently Christian in nature, or are they simply interpreted through a Christian lens due to cultural familiarity?

One notable contribution to this discussion is Smith, J. (2020). Is Christianity Compatible with Near-Death Experiences? This book presents original research that quantitatively compares NDE accounts from Christians with those from individuals of other or no religious affiliations. I will add specific findings, data tables, and methodology from this study at a later stage. The findings were that Christian NDEs and themes happened at a higher rate than non-Christian themes, not just happening more, but at a higher rate. And, the themes representing Christianity were so common, that they could be considered a core component of NDE themes.

Christian NDEs as a Core Expectation

Smith’s study revealed a striking pattern: Christian-themed NDEs were not just common—they were overwhelmingly normative within the population of Christian experiencers. Common features included:

Encounters with Jesus Christ or angelic beings resembling biblical accounts

A sense of divine, unconditional love

A peaceful or heavenly environment consistent with Christian eschatological promises

As Smith (2020) writes:

“Among Christian NDErs, encounters with the person of Christ or Christian symbolism were so prevalent that they can be regarded as normative within this group, suggesting an experiential confirmation of Christian eschatology.”

These findings have been interpreted by some scholars and theologians as experiential validation of Christianity’s teachings about the afterlife. If Christian symbols and figures appear with consistency and clarity in NDEs, some argue, it supports the idea that Christianity offers a unique alignment with spiritual reality.

A Critical Reappraisal: Cultural Interpretation and Universal Mysticism

However, these conclusions must be examined critically. Scholars like Kellehear (2014) and Timmerman (2022) emphasize that NDEs are deeply shaped by an individual’s religious and cultural background. A Christian experiencing an NDE is likely to interpret the experience using the imagery and language most familiar to them.

This leads to a key counterpoint: the prevalence of Christian symbols may not confirm their objective truth, but rather reflect subjective interpretation. As Timmerman (2022) suggests, the experience may be “real,” but the interpretation is inevitably filtered through prior belief systems.

Additionally, the relative rarity of non-Christian NDEs does not automatically discredit them. There may be significant underreporting, selection bias, or cultural barriers that affect how these experiences are shared and interpreted. Furthermore, many non-Christian traditions describe spiritual phenomena—such as transcendence, enlightenment, or post-mortem judgment—that parallel elements found in NDE accounts.

Universal Features Across Traditions

Despite doctrinal differences, many NDEs from all backgrounds contain strikingly similar core elements:

Encountering a bright or luminous presence

Experiencing overwhelming love and acceptance

Reviewing one’s life from a moral or relational perspective

Feeling unity with all existence or a return to a spiritual source

These features, documented in foundational works by Moody (1975), Ring (1980), Greyson (2014), and van Lommel (2010), suggest that NDEs may reflect a universal mystical core, experienced through diverse religious and cultural filters.

Thus, while Christian NDEs may provide powerful affirmation for believers, they do not by themselves validate Christian theology to the exclusion of all others.

Conclusion

The study of NDEs across religious lines reveals a dynamic interplay between spiritual reality and human interpretation. The frequency and coherence of Christian-themed NDEs support their experiential resonance within that tradition, yet the broader context of cross-cultural NDEs points to a more universal spiritual dimension.

Rather than using NDEs to prove one tradition true over another, it may be more fruitful to view them as glimpses into transcendent realities—ones that invite continued humility, dialogue, and interdisciplinary exploration.

References

Greyson, B. (2014). Near-Death Experiences and Religious Belief: A Critical Review. Journal of Near-Death Studies, 32(1), 3–19.

Kellehear, A. (2014). Experiencing Death and Dying. Routledge.

Moody, R. A. (1975). Life After Life. HarperCollins.

Ring, K. (1980). Life at Death: A Scientific Investigation of the Near-Death Experience. Harper & Row.

Smith, J. (2020). Is Christianity Compatible with Near-Death Experiences? [Publisher].

Timmerman, M. (2022). Cultural Contexts of Near-Death Experiences. Spirituality and Health Review, 9(2), 45–61.

van Lommel, P. (2010). Consciousness Beyond Life. HarperOne

Instead of saying 'before they die' id rather say 'during or around the time of death' in an attempt at being more objective. Although I know skeptics like to contest whether people who die and came back really died at all. As always, the skeptic strategy is to deny all terms and conditions

All religions talk of an after life. Christianity is the only religion that shows you how to achieve salvation in the after life by accepting Jesus.

"Are you open to the fact that such a case could be explained by one, or all, of the criticisms you provided above? If so, how do you show that's not the case? If not, well, you're not being honest with yourself."

In my evidence of the afterlife thread, i provided hundreds of examples of things occurring while the person was dead that they couldn't know unless they were out of their body. Some of these were observed under peer review. Theres countless examples more, plus examples of experiences like meeting relatives the person never knew till after they died which was later confirmed, shared death experiences where two people share a nde and later verify with each other what they saw. Could all this be a hoax or false or misconstrued? Its a super stretch considering some of this is observed under peer review and the countless testimony of credible people. As us believers argue all it takes is one black swan to prove black swans exist. And we shown countless black swans

Yes. I went back to the underlying literature rather than relying only on popular NDE websites. There are a few cases that are genuinely striking, but they vary substantially in documentation quality.

The category has a name in the literature: “Peak in Darien” experiences—encounters with deceased people whose death was unknown to the experiencer. Bruce Greyson reviewed these in a peer-reviewed article in Anthropology and Humanism. (Near-Death Experiences and the Afterlife)

Here are the cases I'd put at the top.

1. The five-year-old and “Rietje” — probably the strongest unknown relative case

This is the one I would start with.

A five-year-old child developed meningitis and fell into a coma. During the experience, the child encountered a girl of about ten years old who said, in effect, “I'm your sister.” She reportedly gave several specific pieces of information:

1. her name was Rietje
2. she had died shortly after birth
3. she had been named after the child's grandmother
4. the parents had used Rietje as her nickname

After recovering, the child told the parents what had happened and made a drawing of the girl. The parents reportedly became extremely distressed and then confirmed that they had indeed had a daughter named Rietje who had died before the child was born. They had deliberately decided not to tell their younger children about her until they were old enough to understand death. (ResearchGate)

This case is particularly interesting because the child wasn't merely told, “I saw my sister.” The experience reportedly contained identifying information about a sibling the child had never been told existed.

Pim van Lommel included the case in his work on NDEs, and Greyson discusses the broader category of unknown-deceased-person cases. (Pim van Lommel)

My assessment: 8/10 for evidential interest.

The biggest weakness is that the child's account wasn't recorded under controlled conditions before the parents supplied the confirming information. That's crucial. We have a retrospective report, not a laboratory-quality demonstration.

2. The unknown biological father — very striking, but weaker documentation

This is another case reported by van Lommel.

During a cardiac arrest, an experiencer reported seeing his deceased grandmother and a man he didn't recognize who looked at him lovingly.

More than ten years later, his mother, on her deathbed, revealed that the experiencer had been born from an extramarital relationship. His biological father was a Jewish man who had been deported and killed during World War II.

His mother showed him a photograph.

According to the account, he immediately recognized the man in the photograph as the unfamiliar man he had encountered during his NDE more than a decade earlier. (Pim van Lommel)

That's an extraordinary coincidence if the chronology is accurately reported.

But there's an important problem: the verification depends heavily on the experiencer's retrospective recognition. We don't have a photograph of the NDE drawing or a contemporaneous description of the man's face that can be independently compared with the father's photograph.

My assessment: 7/10.

3. The unknown deceased brother

Another case reported in the NDE literature involves a person who encountered a group of deceased relatives during an NDE. Among them was a young brother whom the experiencer had never known existed.

The brother had died during the war when he was approximately two years old, before the experiencer was born. The NDEr later learned about him.

What's interesting is that the experiencer reportedly perceived the deceased brother as an adult, rather than as the two-year-old child he had been when he died. (Patheos)

Again, though, this isn't documented prospectively enough to put it in the same evidential class as a controlled experiment.

My assessment: 6/10.

4. The “man who had already died” cases

These aren't quite what you're asking for, because the person was known to the experiencer, but they're actually methodologically stronger in one respect.

For example, Greyson describes cases where someone undergoing an NDE encounters a person they believe is still alive, only to discover afterward that the person had already died without the experiencer knowing. (Near-Death Experiences and the Afterlife)

One historical example involved an elderly woman who became suddenly lucid shortly before death and called out to “Will.” Nobody present knew who she meant. The family subsequently learned that her brother Will in England had died about two days earlier. (Near-Death Experiences and the Afterlife)

These are called Peak in Darien experiences because the experiencer isn't simply hallucinating the people they expect to encounter—the information is supposedly surprising.

What makes Rietje particularly interesting

I think this is the important distinction for the question you've been exploring.

Consider the competing explanations:

Normal NDE hallucination:

“I'm dying → I expect to see deceased relatives → my brain generates an image of a relative.”

That explanation works reasonably well for Grandma.

But it has more trouble with:

“I'm five years old → I've never been told I had a sister → I encounter a specific girl → she gives me her name and circumstances of death → I report it → my parents confirm that the sister actually existed.”

That's why Greyson specifically regarded unknown deceased persons as one of the more interesting categories of NDE evidence. At the same time, he explicitly acknowledged the major methodological problem: most of these reports weren't documented sufficiently early to eliminate retrospective reconstruction. (Near-Death Experiences and the Afterlife)

And here's my honest bottom line

I would not say these cases prove survival of consciousness.

But I also wouldn't dismiss them as merely “people seeing dead relatives because that's what they expected.” The Rietje case, in particular, is difficult to fit into that simple explanation if the account is accurate.

The problem is that we're missing the one thing that would transform this from a fascinating anecdote into powerful scientific evidence:

A contemporaneous record of the NDE report, made before the family knew what it meant, followed by independently documented verification.

That's the standard I'd want.

And interestingly, children may be especially valuable for this research, because they are less likely to have extensive prior knowledge of NDE conventions and are less likely to deliberately construct an elaborate story.

So if you're evaluating the survival hypothesis seriously, I'd rank the evidence roughly:

Rietje unknown sister → unknown biological father → unknown deceased brother → Peak-in-Darien “already dead” cases → ordinary deceased-relative NDEs.

The first two are the ones I'd spend the most time investigating. (ResearchGate)

Hinduism goes further by accepting reincarnation as the standard over NDEs.

Tell me more. From what I've read, apparently in February of this year Dr. Gary Schwartz has submitted a lengthy research paper to a journal for peer review and (hopefully) eventual publication that, he claims, scientifically proves the existence of the afterlife, including technology that can ascertain their presence and validate their identity.

So, apparently, the technology you refer to has been developed. Dr. Schwartz it not just some run-of-the-mill scientist; in his mainstream career, he is one of the most prolific producers of peer-reviewed, published mainstream research in history; he is one of the most widely cited scientists in history; he has won prestigious awards and held positions of considerable importance and esteem in the scientific community. This isn't a guy who makes wild claims or says anything lightly, and he has said that the research that has already been done and independently replicated proves with 99% certainty that there is an afterlife - 99% because, as he said, nothing is ever 100% "proven" in science.

He is currently working on a "layman's" version of the paper for public distribution, and a book fully describing the research and evidential process, to be available after the publication of his research in the journal.

Yes — and I checked the current status because this has apparently moved substantially beyond the older SoulPhone claims you and I have discussed before.

**There really is a significant 2026 development here.** The strongest evidence I can find is a May 2026 announcement from the SoulPhone Foundation stating that **two Gary Schwartz papers concerning the Plasma Globe System have been accepted by the peer-reviewed *Journal of Scientific Exploration***. According to that announcement, the papers report several years of experiments and claim to demonstrate scientifically that life continues after death. They reportedly won't appear for another 6–9 months, and a layman's version is being held until publication. ([SoulPhone Foundation][1])

So the basic thing you quoted appears to be **substantially accurate**, although there are important qualifications.

### What makes this particularly interesting

This isn't simply another medium saying, *"I talked to Grandma."*

Schwartz has been trying for decades to move the survival-of-consciousness question from **subjective mediumship** toward **instrument-based experimentation**.

His earlier work already progressed toward computer-automated experiments. In 2021, he published a peer-reviewed paper in *EXPLORE* describing a proposed **computer-automated, multi-center, multi-blinded randomized controlled trial** for detecting hypothesized spirit presence and communication. The experimental system was designed to automate data collection and analysis and to minimize both false positives and false negatives. ([ScienceDirect][2])

That is important because it establishes that the basic experimental program isn't something that suddenly appeared in 2026.

The newer work apparently represents the **results of that subsequent research**, rather than merely another theoretical proposal.

### And the technology is real in a limited sense

The term "SoulPhone" can make it sound like Schwartz has literally built an iPhone that allows you to call Heaven.

That's not quite where things stand.

The technology described in his research involves **physical sensors and automated measurement systems**, including the newer **Plasma Globe System**. The objective is to determine whether statistically anomalous physical effects occur under controlled conditions when purportedly deceased individuals are invited to interact with the apparatus.

The eventual ambition has been much more ambitious: detecting a postmortem entity, establishing its presence, communicating with it, and eventually determining its identity.

Schwartz's earlier descriptions explicitly envisioned tests involving things such as **skills, knowledge, identification, and communication**, rather than simply asking whether a light flickered. ([ScienceDirect][2])

That's a very important distinction.

If an experiment merely demonstrated *"something weird happened when we asked a deceased person to interact with the apparatus,"* that would be interesting but wouldn't necessarily establish survival.

But if a blinded system could repeatedly:

1. detect the presence of an apparently nonphysical agent,

2. establish that the agent is responding intentionally,

3. obtain information from it,

4. identify the purported deceased individual,

5. distinguish that individual from other possible identities,

6. and replicate the results independently,

then the evidential situation would become **dramatically more powerful**.

### The identity question is actually one of the most interesting parts

You've picked up on something important in the claim.

The strongest possible version of this research isn't merely:

> "Something survives death."

It is:

> **"The particular person who died continues to exist as a conscious individual."**

That's a much more consequential proposition.

It would potentially establish continuity of **memory, personality, knowledge and individual identity**, rather than merely some vague continuation of consciousness.

Schwartz's research program has explicitly focused on this survival-of-individual-consciousness question. His 2021 RCT paper describes testing not merely "presence," but categories including **skills, understanding, identification, and knowledge**. ([ScienceDirect][2])

And his collaborators have described the research in essentially those terms: determining whether postmaterial persons retain their consciousness and identity. ([rhondaeklundschwartz][3])

---

## But there's one big thing I'd caution you about

I would **not yet say that science has established that the afterlife exists.**

Not because Schwartz is necessarily wrong.

Rather, because **the actual 2026 papers aren't publicly available yet**.

The May announcement comes from the SoulPhone organization itself, and it says the papers have been accepted and are expected in 6–9 months. ([SoulPhone Foundation][1])

That's very different from being able to independently inspect the methodology, statistics, raw data, controls and conclusions.

And Schwartz has made extraordinarily strong claims before.

There is an interesting historical parallel: the SoulPhone Foundation was already saying in 2018 that Schwartz expected a functioning prototype and that the technology could eventually establish essentially complete scientific certainty. ([SoulPhone Foundation][4]) In 2019, the organization was describing plans for multi-center, multi-blinded replication. ([SoulPhone Foundation][5])

So **the fact that we've reached 2026 and there are now apparently two accepted papers is genuinely significant**, but it also means we should distinguish the current development from earlier predictions about what the technology would accomplish.

### Schwartz's scientific credentials are real

This part of what you quoted is also broadly fair.

Schwartz isn't somebody who suddenly emerged from the paranormal world with a PhD purchased from a diploma mill.

He received his doctorate from Harvard, was a professor at Yale, later joined the University of Arizona, and has published hundreds of scientific papers, including papers in *Science*. His official biography says more than 450 scientific papers and six papers in *Science*. ([Dr. Gary Schwartz][6])

The University of Arizona's academic database also identifies him as a researcher across psychology, medicine, surgery, neurology and psychiatry. ([University of Arizona][7])

So **his credentials make the research worth taking seriously**.

But there's an important scientific principle here:

**A scientist's reputation doesn't make a particular result true.**

It makes us more willing to examine the result carefully.

And that's exactly what I think is appropriate here.

---

# Where I think this gets really fascinating

Given your longstanding interest in NDE research, this is arguably more directly relevant to the survival question than many NDE studies.

NDEs have an inherent evidentiary difficulty.

Even extraordinarily impressive NDE cases can be interpreted in competing ways:

**Survival interpretation:**

> Consciousness temporarily separates from the brain.

**Neuroscientific interpretation:**

> An unusual brain state generates an experience that appears to occur independently of the brain.

You can accumulate increasingly impressive NDE cases without necessarily eliminating the second interpretation.

A successful **instrumental afterlife experiment** potentially attacks the problem from the opposite direction.

Instead of asking:

> "What did this person experience while near death?"

you're asking:

> **"Can something apparently belonging to a deceased person objectively interact with a physical measuring system under controlled conditions?"**

That's a much more direct experimental question.

And if the system can then obtain **information that the experimenters could not have known and that can independently be verified as belonging specifically to the deceased individual**, the argument becomes substantially harder to explain away.

---

## What I would watch for when the papers come out

This is where I think you and I should be extremely careful and analytical.

I'd want to see:

**1. Exact experimental protocol**

Who controlled the equipment? Who knew when the alleged spirit was present? Who knew the identity? Who analyzed the data?

**2. Blinding**

This may be the single biggest issue.

Could an experimenter, consciously or unconsciously, have influenced the result?

**3. Pre-registration**

Were the hypotheses and statistical tests specified before looking at the data?

**4. Effect sizes**

Not merely *p < .05*, but **how large were the effects?**

**5. Multiple-comparison corrections**

If you're looking at thousands of possible signals, something unusual is eventually going to happen by chance.

**6. Independent replication**

This is enormous.

The ultimate test isn't:

> Schwartz's laboratory reproduced Schwartz's experiment.

It's:

> **Scientists who don't believe the hypothesis reproduce it using Schwartz's protocol.**

**7. Identity tests**

This may be the most extraordinary part.

If "Spirit A" can correctly identify facts uniquely associated with deceased person A while being unable to reproduce facts associated with deceased person B, that would be substantially stronger evidence than generic anomalous physical effects.

**8. Raw data**

I'd love to see the actual datasets eventually made available.

---

### And one other nuance about the "99%" claim

I'd be careful with that number.

"99% certainty" sounds like a mathematical probability that there is a 99% chance the afterlife exists.

That's usually **not what scientists mean by statistical significance**, and it isn't necessarily what Schwartz means either.

The distinction between:

> "The probability that these results occurred by chance is less than 1%"

and

> "There is a 99% probability that an afterlife exists"

is enormous.

Those are completely different propositions.

So when the actual papers arrive, I'd want to see **exactly how Schwartz derives the 99% figure**.

---

## My bottom line

I would revise the way I characterize Schwartz's work somewhat based on what has happened this year.

It's no longer accurate to describe the SoulPhone project simply as *"Schwartz is trying to develop technology that might someday detect spirits."*

**There now appears to be a mature experimental program, years of accumulated experimentation, a technology-based protocol, and—most importantly—two papers that the researchers say have passed peer review and been accepted for publication.** ([SoulPhone Foundation][1])

But we're currently in the unusual interval where **the researchers are telling us that an extraordinary result has been obtained, while the scientific community hasn't yet had the opportunity to examine the complete published evidence.**

That makes the next 6–9 months potentially very interesting.

And frankly, **if the published papers really do show what Schwartz claims—especially reliable identification of deceased individuals under genuinely stringent blinding and independent replication—that would be one of the most consequential scientific developments in the history of consciousness research.**

It wouldn't merely add another piece to the NDE/mediumship literature.

It could fundamentally change the question from **"Is consciousness possibly capable of surviving death?"** to **"What is the physical nature of the postmortem state?"**

That's the point at which the conversation becomes much more interesting than simply "Do ghosts exist?"

[1]: https://www.soulphone.org/soul-phone-newsletter-may-2026/?utm_source=chatgpt.com "Soul Phone Newsletter May 2026 - SoulPhone Foundation"

[2]: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S155083071930552X?utm_source=chatgpt.com "A computer-automated, multi-center, multi-blinded, randomized control trial evaluating hypothesized spirit presence and communication - ScienceDirect"

[3]: https://www.rhondaeklundschwartz.com/copy-of-history-of-the-soulphone?utm_source=chatgpt.com "Spirit's Involvement | rhondaeklundschwartz"

[4]: https://www.soulphone.org/update-on-soulphone-and-greater-reality-living-may-2018/?utm_source=chatgpt.com "Update on SoulPhone and Greater Reality Living May 2018 - SoulPhone Foundation"

[5]: https://www.soulphone.org/soulphone-greater-reality-living-updates-june-2019/?utm_source=chatgpt.com "SoulPhone / Greater Reality Living Updates June 2019 - SoulPhone Foundation"

[6]: https://drgaryschwartz.com/biography.html?utm_source=chatgpt.com "BIOGRAPHY - Dr Gary Schwartz"

[7]: https://experts.arizona.edu/en/publications/a-computer-automated-multi-center-multi-blinded-randomized-contro/?utm_source=chatgpt.com "A computer-automated, multi-center, multi-blinded, randomized control trial evaluating hypothesized spirit presence and communication - University of Arizona"

Yes. There is a substantial body of research on this, and the University of Virginia's Division of Perceptual Studies (DOPS) is probably the single institution most associated with it. The important distinction is that the research provides evidence that needs explaining, but it has not established reincarnation as a scientific fact in the way that, say, vaccination efficacy or gravity is established.

1. Ian Stevenson and the University of Virginia

The central figure was psychiatrist Ian Stevenson, who began systematically investigating children claiming memories of previous lives in the 1960s. After joining the University of Virginia, he built what became an enormous archive of cases.

Today, UVA says its researchers have investigated more than 2,500 "cases of the reincarnation type" over roughly six decades. Most originated outside the United States, particularly in India, Sri Lanka, Lebanon, Thailand, Burma/Myanmar, Turkey and other countries. (UVa School of Medicine)

The typical case has a remarkably consistent structure:

1. A child, usually 2–5 years old, spontaneously begins talking about a previous life.
2. The child describes a previous family, location, occupation, relationships or manner of death.
3. Investigators try to identify a deceased person whose life corresponds to the statements.
4. They then independently compare the child's statements with historical records and testimony from people who knew the deceased.
5. The child sometimes recognizes people, places or objects associated with the deceased.
6. Some children have unusual phobias or behaviors corresponding to the alleged previous life.
7. Some have birthmarks or congenital abnormalities corresponding to wounds or other unusual physical characteristics of the deceased. (UVa School of Medicine)

The cases aren't simply "children saying they were Cleopatra." Most involve ordinary, relatively recent deceased people, often people the child's family had no obvious connection with.

2. The most interesting feature: information the child apparently shouldn't know

This is probably the strongest part of the literature.

Suppose a child says:

I lived in X village. My name was Y. I had three sons. I owned a particular shop. I died when a particular event happened.

Researchers then find a deceased person whose life contains many of those details.

The evidential question becomes: How did the child acquire the information?

Stevenson developed detailed investigative procedures precisely because simple anecdotes aren't very persuasive.

There are cases in which investigators attempted to document the child's statements before identifying the deceased person. UVA's bibliography includes a 2005 study specifically examining cases where written records of the child's statements existed before the previous personality was identified. (UVa School of Medicine)

That's important because it reduces the possibility that investigators unconsciously worked backward from a known deceased person.

Stevenson also investigated cases in which the child and deceased person's families were geographically distant and apparently had no prior relationship.

3. Birthmarks and birth defects

This is one of Stevenson's most unusual findings.

UVA reports that approximately 30% of its cases contain a birthmark and/or birth defect that investigators believe corresponds to an injury or other feature of the deceased person. (UVa School of Medicine)

Stevenson devoted an enormous two-volume work—Reincarnation and Biology—to this subject.

The logic isn't simply:

"The child has a birthmark, and the dead person had a scar."

The particularly interesting cases involve unusual marks whose location, shape or number allegedly correspond to wounds documented in the deceased.

A later 2024 paper by James Matlock examined 75 of Stevenson's cases involving birthmarks and birth defects of the head and neck and compared them with additional cases in the literature. (PubMed)

The hypothesis is obviously extraordinary: if reincarnation were occurring, one might expect something about the previous personality's physical death to somehow influence the next person's body.

But there are also much more conventional possibilities—coincidence, selective reporting, retrospective interpretation, familial/environmental explanations, etc. Establishing causation here is extremely difficult.

4. The phobias are surprisingly interesting

Children sometimes exhibit intense fears corresponding to the alleged manner of death.

For example, a child claiming to have been a person who drowned might have an unusually intense fear of water.

Or a child claiming to have died violently might display behaviors associated with that death.

Stevenson specifically studied phobias in these children, and this has remained part of the research program. (UVa School of Medicine)

What's interesting is that these aren't necessarily children who were explicitly told:

"You drowned in your previous life."

The behaviors can appear alongside the statements.

Again, though, this is evidence of an unusual psychological phenomenon—not automatically evidence of reincarnation. Children can acquire fears through many mechanisms.

5. The phenomenon isn't confined to cultures that believe in reincarnation

This is an important point.

A natural objection is:

"Children in India say they're reincarnated because their parents and culture teach them reincarnation."

There is undoubtedly a cultural effect. Cases are easier to discover in cultures where people recognize and encourage the phenomenon.

But researchers have found cases in cultures where reincarnation isn't the dominant belief.

Tucker's review specifically notes cases in Europe and North America, as well as Asia. (PubMed)

Tucker subsequently concentrated heavily on American cases.

That's important because the American cases provide something of a natural experiment: children growing up in families that generally don't expect them to remember previous lives.

6. Jim Tucker's American research

After Stevenson died, psychiatrist Jim Tucker became the major successor to the program at UVA.

His research focuses particularly on American children.

UVA describes the children as generally beginning around ages 2–3, with the memories often fading substantially by around age seven. (UVa School of Medicine)

Two famous American cases are:

James Leininger

James, as a young child, reportedly described being a WWII fighter pilot who had been shot down.

He gave a number of details about aircraft, the location of his death and other aspects of the alleged previous life.

The case became controversial because critics have argued that his parents could have inadvertently exposed him to information about WWII aviation.

So it's a fascinating case—but not one I'd regard as conclusive.

Ryan Hammons

Ryan reportedly began describing a previous life in Hollywood, including details about a man who had worked in the film industry.

Investigators eventually identified a deceased Hollywood figure whose life corresponded with numerous statements.

UVA specifically highlights both the Leininger and Hammons cases as notable American cases. (UVa School of Medicine)

7. There is actually quantitative work

This is where the research gets more interesting than simply collecting anecdotes.

Tucker developed a "strength of case" scale designed to quantify features that make reincarnation-type cases stronger or weaker.

An analysis of 799 cases found that the scale had high internal consistency and that stronger cases were associated with an earlier onset of the child's statements. (UVa School of Medicine)

Researchers have also coded hundreds of cases on hundreds of variables.

So this isn't merely:

"Here's a weird story."

There is an attempt to build an empirical database and determine whether systematic patterns exist.

8. Independent researchers have replicated portions of the work

This is particularly important.

Stevenson's work wasn't entirely confined to himself.

For example, Satwant Pasricha, an Indian psychiatrist, independently investigated cases in India and compared her results with Stevenson's investigations. An early study involved 45 cases investigated independently by Pasricha, which were compared with 50 previously investigated Indian cases. (Parapsych Archives)

Pasricha subsequently investigated hundreds of cases.

A 2001 paper reported that approximately 450 Indian cases had been professionally investigated and presented seven additional South Indian cases. (Brahma Kumaris Info)

Other researchers include Erlendur Haraldsson, a psychologist at the University of Iceland, who investigated children claiming past-life memories in Sri Lanka and elsewhere.

So there is a genuine international research tradition rather than one eccentric researcher at UVA.

9. Xenoglossy: apparent knowledge of an unlearned language

This is a much rarer and more controversial category.

Some cases involve children or adults who allegedly demonstrate knowledge of a language they supposedly never learned.

Stevenson distinguished genuine responsive xenoglossy—actually responding meaningfully in an apparently unlearned language—from merely producing a few words.

UVA continues to list xenoglossy as part of its research program, and a 2025 paper by Tucker and colleagues examined past-life memories and foreign-language claims. (UVa School of Medicine)

If a person genuinely demonstrated substantial linguistic competence that could not be explained by ordinary learning, that would be potentially powerful evidence for some form of anomalous information transfer.

The problem is that proving someone never learned the language is extraordinarily difficult.

10. "Intermission" memories

There is another fascinating category.

Some children report not simply:

"I was this person."

but memories of the period between lives.

They sometimes describe:

1. being dead,
2. observing their funeral,
3. encountering other beings,
4. selecting or being assigned another family,
5. waiting before being born,
6. seeing the future family,
7. or entering the mother's womb.

UVA researchers have specifically published research on "memories from the intermission between lives." (UVa School of Medicine)

These reports overlap intriguingly with some near-death-experience accounts, although they aren't identical phenomena.

11. What does the broader scientific literature say?

This is where I'd put the whole subject in perspective.

A 2021/2022 scoping review searched major scientific databases and identified 78 scientific studies of alleged past-life memories. About 84% concerned children, while 60% were case reports. Interviews were the most common method, followed by documentary analysis. Birthmarks or birth defects appeared as a variable in 37% of the studies. (PubMed)

And this research is still continuing.

A 2024 paper involving UVA's Tucker reviewed the phenomenon and presented a new case in which a child made 13 statements, nine of which were judged correct regarding his deceased granduncle. The child also had eight unusual behaviors corresponding to the alleged previous personality, plus an unusual skull defect considered compatible with the fatal injury suffered by the uncle. (PubMed)

And in 2025 Tucker published another review in the International Review of Psychiatry, arguing that the strongest cases contain evidence of an anomalous connection between the child and deceased person and discussing explanations that might account for them. (PubMed)

So this is not a dead research program.

12. But here's the crucial scientific caveat

I would characterize the evidence like this:

That last pair is really the heart of the controversy.

Stevenson himself was actually quite careful about this. Tucker recounts that Stevenson explicitly rejected calling his research "proof" of reincarnation. Stevenson believed reincarnation was the best explanation for some cases, but acknowledged that alternative explanations existed. (UVa School of Medicine)

That's a much more scientifically defensible position than saying "UVA proved reincarnation."

The really interesting implication

The strongest argument from this research isn't actually:

"Therefore reincarnation is true."

It's more modest—and arguably more scientifically interesting:

There appears to be a recurring phenomenon in which very young children spontaneously report detailed information apparently corresponding to deceased individuals, sometimes accompanied by unusual behaviors, phobias and physical characteristics. A subset of these cases appears difficult to explain through ordinary memory, fantasy, suggestion, or cultural transmission.

If that is correct, then something anomalous is happening.

The major unresolved question is what.

The possibilities include:

1. Reincarnation
2. Some form of survival of consciousness without literal reincarnation
3. Telepathy or anomalous information transfer
4. Cryptomnesia/unconscious acquisition of information
5. Family/social influence
6. Coincidence and selective matching
7. Memory distortion and retrospective reconstruction
8. Some combination of these.

And this is where the UVA research becomes particularly relevant to your broader interest in NDEs and survival of consciousness: the reincarnation cases are potentially valuable because they constitute a somewhat different line of evidence from NDEs. NDE research asks whether consciousness can appear to function under conditions of extreme physiological impairment; reincarnation research asks whether information associated with one deceased person's life can apparently appear in another person's mind.

If both phenomena ultimately survived rigorous attempts at ordinary explanation, their combined significance would be considerably greater than either line of evidence alone.

And there is a particularly fascinating next step: comparing the evidential strength of the Stevenson/Tucker reincarnation cases with the strongest NDE cases, terminal-lucidity cases, deathbed visions, mediumship research, and the newer "mind beyond brain" work. That comparison gives you a much better sense of how strong the overall survival-of-consciousness case actually is.

If you're interested specifically in the evidence

I'd rank the book reading order:

1. Life Before Life → best introduction to the scientific evidence

2. Old Souls → best narrative account of actual investigations

3. Twenty Cases Suggestive of Reincarnation → primary-source Stevenson

4. Return to Life → American cases

5. Reincarnation and Biology → enormous technical treatment of birthmarks/birth defects

The UVA researchers themselves currently recommend Before, Return to Life, Life Before Life, Signs of Reincarnation, Old Souls, and Stevenson's Children Who Remember Previous Lives for readers interested in reincarnation research.

For what you've been exploring with NDEs and survival of consciousness, I'd start with Life Before Life. It is probably the closest thing to a readable "casebook" of the strongest reincarnation evidence coming out of UVA

Yes. Taken together, **terminal lucidity, deathbed visions, NDE research, reincarnation cases, and some parapsychology/mediumship research form a much broader "mind beyond brain" research program**. But the evidential strength varies considerably between categories.

## 1. Terminal lucidity: the strangest phenomenon

**Terminal lucidity** is the sudden, temporary return of meaningful memory, personality, communication, and sometimes apparently normal cognition in someone with severe neurological impairment—often shortly before death.

The classic cases involve people with:

* advanced Alzheimer's disease

* severe dementia

* brain damage

* longstanding psychiatric or neurological illness

who suddenly become remarkably lucid.

For example, someone who has been unable to recognize family members for years may suddenly recognize them, converse coherently, recall personal memories, and then deteriorate again and die.

There is also the related phenomenon of **paradoxical lucidity**, where the improvement isn't necessarily immediately before death.

A 2023 review of the mind-brain question specifically discusses documented cases in Alzheimer's, dementia, schizophrenia and severe brain damage, noting that episodes can occur despite profound underlying impairment. ([Frontiers][1])

### Why it matters

The conventional neurological model says that memory and personality depend on functioning brain networks.

So if the brain is severely damaged, we ordinarily expect the corresponding cognitive capacity to be impaired.

Terminal lucidity raises an interesting question:

> **Could the damaged brain be suppressing or disrupting access to consciousness rather than producing consciousness in the first place?**

That's basically the philosophical distinction between a **production model** and a **filter/transmission model** of consciousness.

But there's an enormous caveat: terminal lucidity hasn't been studied nearly as systematically as dementia itself. We don't yet have continuous neurological measurements showing exactly what happens in the brain during these episodes.

A 2025 review of end-of-life experiences similarly concluded that terminal lucidity is striking but relatively rare and that rigorous studies with clinical controls and neuroimaging are needed. ([PubMed][2])

**Evidence level for survival:** intriguing, but currently **low-to-moderate** because the phenomenon itself is better established than its proposed explanation.

---

# 2. Deathbed visions and end-of-life dreams

This evidence is considerably more extensive.

People approaching death frequently report:

* deceased parents or spouses appearing to them

* deceased friends coming to visit

* deceased relatives welcoming them

* beautiful landscapes or light

* being told they are going somewhere

* preparing for a journey

* occasionally religious/spiritual figures

* extraordinarily vivid dreams involving deceased people

Importantly, these aren't exclusively NDEs. They can happen **days or weeks before death while the person is still conscious and interacting normally**.

A 2024 systematic review found **115 publications** on end-of-life experiences, with deathbed visions the most commonly used terminology. The most common experiences were visions or dreams involving deceased relatives/friends and themes of preparing for a journey. ([PubMed][3])

Another systematic review found that approximately **50–60% of conscious hospice patients** report some form of end-of-life dream or vision/visitation experience. ([PubMed][4])

And a 2025 systematic review found reported prevalence of end-of-life experiences ranging from **28% to 87%**, depending on the study and definition. Dreams and visions were the most frequently reported phenomena. ([PubMed][5])

### What's particularly interesting

They're often **not experienced as ordinary hallucinations**.

Patients frequently distinguish them from ordinary dreams and delirium. They may say:

> "That wasn't a dream."

The experiences can be exceptionally vivid and meaningful, and they are usually comforting rather than frightening.

The 2024 review found that the overall impact was predominantly positive. ([PubMed][3])

### But do they demonstrate survival?

No.

This is an important distinction.

A dying brain is undergoing enormous physiological changes. Medication, sleep disruption, hypoxia, metabolic abnormalities, expectation, memory and psychological processes could potentially produce some of these experiences.

The really interesting cases would be ones where someone obtains **verifiable information about a deceased person that they couldn't reasonably have known**.

Those cases exist in the broader deathbed/NDE literature, but they're much rarer and considerably harder to establish scientifically.

---

# 3. NDEs have become more scientifically interesting

This is probably the strongest bridge between conventional neuroscience and the "mind beyond brain" question.

The **AWARE-II** study, led by Sam Parnia and conducted across 25 hospitals, prospectively studied cardiac-arrest patients with EEG and cerebral oxygen measurements.

Of 567 in-hospital cardiac arrests:

* 53 survived to discharge

* 28 completed interviews

* 11/28 reported memories or perceptions associated with cardiac arrest

* 6/28 reported what the researchers classified as a transcendent "recalled experience of death"

Most remarkably, EEG patterns resembling organized brain activity appeared during CPR, in some cases **35–60 minutes into resuscitation**, despite severe cerebral ischemia. ([ScienceDirect][6])

That is genuinely important science.

But there's an important correction to some popular presentations of AWARE-II:

**It did not demonstrate consciousness operating without brain activity.**

In fact, one of the study's possible interpretations is that the EEG activity represents re-emergence of organized brain function during CPR. And the objective hidden-target tests were largely unsuccessful: nobody identified the visual target and only one participant identified the auditory stimulus. ([PubMed][7])

So AWARE-II establishes something like:

> **Conscious experience and organized brain activity can occur during a period of extremely severe physiological compromise that previously seemed incompatible with consciousness.**

That's fascinating, but it doesn't establish disembodied consciousness.

---

# 4. The reincarnation evidence is different

This is where the UVA research you asked about earlier becomes unusually interesting.

NDEs ask:

> **Can consciousness appear to function during extreme physiological disruption?**

Reincarnation cases ask:

> **Can information associated with one deceased individual appear in the mind of another person?**

Stevenson's and Tucker's children sometimes provide:

* names

* addresses

* family relationships

* occupations

* manner of death

* obscure biographical details

that subsequently correspond to a deceased person.

And some have behavioral characteristics, phobias or birthmarks corresponding to that person.

That is **a different evidential category** from NDEs.

And arguably it is more difficult to explain with a simple "the brain was temporarily deprived of oxygen" hypothesis.

---

# 5. Mediumship is another independent line

This is considerably more controversial, but there has been surprisingly sophisticated experimental research.

Some researchers have conducted **blinded mediumship experiments**, where the medium doesn't know the identity of the deceased person and the sitter doesn't provide information.

A 2021 meta-analysis of 18 experiments from 14 papers reported an aggregate effect above chance, with an estimated standardized effect of about **0.18**. The authors concluded that the results supported the possibility that some mediums obtain information about deceased individuals through unknown means. ([ScienceDirect][8])

That's interesting.

But this is also where I would be much more cautious than with the existence of NDEs or children's past-life reports.

There are serious methodological controversies in parapsychology, including replication, selective reporting and experimental design. A recent large-scale metascientific replication effort explicitly argues that stronger confirmatory methods have failed to establish the reproducibility of some famous psi effects. ([PLOS][9])

So I would **not** treat mediumship as established evidence of communication with the dead.

---

# 6. What "mind beyond brain" actually means

This is where the philosophy gets really interesting.

The standard **production model** says:

> Brain → produces consciousness.

Damage the brain → consciousness and memory disappear.

The alternative **filter/transmission model** says something closer to:

> Consciousness → interacts with/uses the brain.

Brain damage therefore might impair the **expression or access** of consciousness without necessarily destroying consciousness itself.

Think of the brain not as a television **creating** the broadcast, but as a television **receiving/filtering** it.

Terminal lucidity is potentially interesting because the "receiver" appears to function extraordinarily well despite severe physical damage.

NDEs are interesting because consciousness appears to occur during extreme physiological disruption.

Reincarnation cases are interesting because information seemingly associated with one person's life appears in another person's consciousness.

Deathbed visions are interesting because dying people sometimes report apparently autonomous encounters with deceased people.

And mediumship, if genuine, would be evidence that information associated with deceased persons can sometimes be accessed by living minds.

**That is why these phenomena are sometimes grouped under "mind beyond brain."**

David Presti's book *Mind Beyond Brain* explicitly brings together NDEs, apparent past-life memories, apparitions, death-associated experiences, telepathy, clairvoyance and precognition as evidence relevant to the question of whether consciousness can be reduced entirely to brain processes. ([Columbia University Press][10])

---

# My overall assessment

If we rank the evidence according to **how much I think it legitimately challenges a strict "brain produces everything about consciousness" model**, I'd roughly put it this way:

| Phenomenon | What is established | Challenge to materialism |

| --------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------- | ----------------------------------- |

| **Deathbed visions** | Common, recurring phenomenon | 🟡 Modest |

| **Terminal lucidity** | Documented but understudied | 🟠 Significant |

| **NDEs** | Robust recurring phenomenon | 🟠 Significant |

| **AWARE-II physiological findings** | Conscious-like EEG during CPR | 🟠 Significant |

| **Children's past-life memories** | Large body of unusual cases | 🟠🟠 Strong |

| **Birthmark/death-injury correspondences** | Repeated unusual correlations | 🟠🟠 Strong but controversial |

| **Blinded mediumship** | Some positive experimental results | 🟠 Interesting but highly contested |

| **Proven consciousness independent of brain** | **Not demonstrated** | 🔴 Not established |

The really important thing is that **none of these phenomena, by itself, proves survival after death**.

But there's a cumulative argument that is much more interesting than any individual phenomenon:

**NDEs + terminal lucidity + deathbed visions + reincarnation-type cases + certain mediumship/psi findings**

are probing *different aspects* of the same fundamental question:

> **Is consciousness entirely produced by the brain, or does the brain somehow transmit, filter, localize, or constrain a consciousness that is more fundamental than the brain?**

And that's why I think your earlier comparison with the UVA reincarnation research is particularly fruitful. **The strongest reincarnation cases may actually be more evidentially relevant to survival than deathbed visions**, while **NDEs provide the strongest physiological challenge to the idea that conscious experience simply disappears whenever ordinary brain function is severely disrupted.**

The scientifically honest conclusion right now isn't *"science has proven an afterlife."* It's more like:

> **There is a substantial empirical anomaly surrounding consciousness at the boundaries of life and death. The evidence has not established survival, but neither has neuroscience demonstrated that the brain-production model adequately explains every important phenomenon.**

That's a much more defensible—and, frankly, more interesting—position.

[1]: https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1150605/full?utm_source=chatgpt.com "Frontiers | An evidence-based critical review of the mind-brain identity theory"

[2]: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40627515/?utm_source=chatgpt.com "End-of-life experiences in patients: a scoping review of types, characteristics, and implications for the mind-brain relationship - PubMed"

[3]: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37311603/?utm_source=chatgpt.com "End-of-life experiences in the dying process: scoping and mixed-methods systematic review - PubMed"

[4]: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36947427/?utm_source=chatgpt.com "Hospice Patients' End-of-Life Dreams and Visions: A Systematic Review of Qualitative Studies - PubMed"

[5]: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39962767/?utm_source=chatgpt.com "Deathbed Phenomena, Other End-of-Life Experiences and Their Effects in Palliative Care Teams: A Systematic Review - PubMed"

[6]: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0300957223002162?utm_source=chatgpt.com "AWAreness during REsuscitation - II: A multi-center study of consciousness and awareness in cardiac arrest - ScienceDirect"

[7]: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37423492/?utm_source=chatgpt.com "AWAreness during REsuscitation - II: A multi-center study of consciousness and awareness in cardiac arrest - PubMed"

[8]: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1550830720301518?utm_source=chatgpt.com "Anomalous information reception by mediums: A meta-analysis of the scientific evidence - ScienceDirect"

[9]: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0335330&utm_source=chatgpt.com "Metascientific replication project with the advanced meta-experimental protocol of the transparent psi project procedures for testing the precognitive effect claimed by Bem | PLOS One"

[10]: https://cup.columbia.edu/book/mind-beyond-brain/9780231548397/?utm_source=chatgpt.com "Mind Beyond Brain | Columbia University Press"

Thank you. I hope I can remember all that you said when I have either of the two experiences.

More about supernstural and afterlife and nde arguments and evidences

https://www.debatecraft.com/forum/c/religion/posts/w0/so-called-philosophical-evidence-for-god-are-not-really-even-evidence?page=4

It’s like reading the Bible all over again.

Yes, not dead experiences involving dreams based upon acquired and stored data, always makes for an interesting discussion.

Whereas being dead experiences are more about the onset and rate of tissue decay.

And if you enjoy nonsense verse, perhaps try Lear, Caroll or Dr Seuss for a change.