So called philosophical evidence for god are not really even evidence

I've already expressed I am unimpressed by OBEs since we can make them happen on demand. This fact alone throws a wrench into your grandiose claims. Something with mundane triggers can hardly be a evidence for the supernatural.

As far as 'face value', which specific study are you referring to? Is it from a reputable, peer-reviewed journal or a niche publication biased toward a specific viewpoint? If it is a respected journal, what exactly were its conclusions? I would be highly skeptical of any peer-reviewed study claiming to find evidence for the supernatural much less gods. Ultimately, the question is: do you accept legitimate scientific evidence at face value?

You guys keep making that point and it keeps being illogical. Just because obes can be induced or made artificially dont make the real types invalid. And, you keep ignoring the peer reviewed aspect of some of the examples where protocols were put in place to verify what happened outside of the body. Fake obes dont have anything to do with verified events, something objective like that. Plus even outside peer review I know you call it anecdotal but theres countless examples of third parties verifying what happened outside the body. A few anecdotes can be dismissed but ignoring hindred or thousands is unscientific

So I dont know what me accepting science has to do with this. Of course I do. You and all you skeptics are the ones who keep ignoring the science that contradicts your views, im not the one doing that

You're vaguely motioning torwards an answer out there somewhere, but you're not answering very pointed questions. The gish gallop thread is not an answer. Pick your best peer reviewed study and let's talk about it.

Science is an alternative path to God. It is not as old as the Bible.

Well after looking closer theres not as strong of smoking guns as I had assumed, so i have to fall back on the repeated nature of the anecdotes and on each case recognize the most the only way to discredit them is to assume things are not as they appear

If we rank cases by the criteria:

Independent corroboration by medical staff

Specific, unexpected details

Good physiological documentation

Prospective or near-contemporaneous investigation

Multiple verified perceptions rather than a single hit

then only a handful of cases consistently rise to the top.

1. Pam Reynolds (1991) — strongest physiological documentation

Why it is strong:

Underwent deep hypothermic cardiac arrest ("standstill")

Body cooled to ~60°F (15.5°C)

Heart stopped

Blood drained from head

EEG flat

Brainstem auditory responses absent

Eyes taped shut

Ear speakers emitting loud clicks

Reported perceptions:

Unusual bone saw resembling an electric toothbrush

Particular drill bit case

Conversation about her arteries

These details were confirmed by the surgical team. However, critics note that some perceptions may have occurred before complete standstill, when residual brain activity remained possible. Thus the case is extremely important but not completely immune to alternative explanations.

2. Penny Sartori's ICU Patient ("Pink Lollipop" Case)

This case is especially valuable because it was documented by the bedside nurse herself, Dr. Penny Sartori, during a prospective study.

Verified details:

Identification of an unfamiliar physician

Description of a long suction catheter and pink sponge as a "pink lollipop"

Accurate report of a physiotherapist nervously peeking around curtains

Approximate recall of physician remarks

Importantly, Sartori compared NDE patients with non-NDE patients:

NDE patients often gave strikingly accurate reports.

Controls who merely guessed resuscitation details were usually wrong.

That comparison makes this stronger than isolated anecdotes.

3. The Dentures Case (van Lommel Study)

This is one of the best-known prospective cases.

A Dutch patient underwent cardiac arrest and was deeply unconscious. During resuscitation:

A nurse removed his dentures and placed them in a drawer.

Days later, after recovery, the patient:

Recognized the nurse

Correctly identified him as the person who removed the dentures

Knew where they had been placed

This case is important because it was reported by the nurse himself in a prospective study rather than years later.

4. AWARE I Study (Parnia et al.)

This is the strongest modern prospective study.

2,060 cardiac arrests

Multiple hospitals

Hidden targets installed

Standardized interviews

One patient accurately described:

Defibrillation procedures

Staff actions

Sounds and events during approximately three minutes of cardiac arrest

The hidden targets were not seen, but the auditory details matched medical records. This is important because it occurred in a controlled scientific study rather than a retrospective collection of stories.

5. Al Sullivan

You already know this one:

Verified:

Unusual elbow-flapping gestures

Eyes taped

Drape blocking view

Independent confirmation from cardiologist and surgeon

Strong, but fewer verified details than Sartori or Reynolds.

6. Blind NDE Cases (e.g., Vicki Umipeg)

Some congenitally blind individuals report:

Visual descriptions

Colors

Spatial layouts

These are philosophically fascinating because such people have never had normal visual experience. However, many cases rely on interviews rather than extensive hospital documentation, so they are intriguing but generally weaker evidentially than Reynolds or Sartori.

My evidence ranking

Tier Cases Strength

A

Pam Reynolds, AWARE case, Sartori patient

Best combination of medical documentation and verification

B

Dentures case, Al Sullivan

Strong corroboration but fewer data points

C

Maria's shoe, blind NDEs

Interesting but less rigorous documentation

The central problem in this field is that the cases with the best physiology (Reynolds) are criticized on timing grounds, while the cases with the best veridical perceptions (Sartori, dentures, Sullivan) lack exact second-by-second brain monitoring.

That is why many researchers—both sympathetic and skeptical—say that no single case is decisive, but the cumulative pattern across many independently investigated cases is what keeps the question scientifically alive.

Yes. If you mean the Sullivan, Sartori, Paquette, and Cook–Greyson–Stevenson cases we were discussing, here are the primary or closest scholarly citations.

1. Al Sullivan — the Hartford Hospital OBE

Cook, E. W., Greyson, B., & Stevenson, I. (1998).

“Do Any Near-Death Experiences Provide Evidence for the Survival of Human Personality after Death? Relevant Features and Illustrative Case Reports.” Journal of Scientific Exploration, 12(3), 377–406.

This is particularly important because the Sullivan case is discussed in the paper itself. The authors describe the combination of enhanced mentation, OBE/autoscopy, and apparently paranormal perception that makes the case relevant to survival research.

There is also a later source specifically documenting the corroboration:

Rivas, T. (2009). “Uitspraken van Hiroyoshi Takata over de casus van Al Sullivan” [“Statements made by Hiroyoshi Takata about the Al Sullivan case”]. Terugkeer, 20(3), 22.

And:

Rivas, T., & Dirven, A. (2010). Van en naar het Licht [From and to the Light]. Leeuwarden, Netherlands: Uitgeverij Elikser.

Important qualification: Sullivan is a good case, but it is not a prospectively recorded case with physiological timestamps and contemporaneous documentation. The strongest part is the apparently unusual description of surgeon Hiroyoshi Takata's distinctive arm movements, subsequently confirmed by Takata.

2. Penny Sartori — prospective ICU case

Sartori, P., Badham, P., & Fenwick, P. (2006).

“A Prospectively Studied Near-Death Experience with Corroborated Out-of-Body Perceptions and Unexplained Healing.” Journal of Near-Death Studies, 25(2), 69–84.

DOI: 10.17514/JNDS-2006-25-2-p69-84.

This is probably the single citation you most want for the Sartori patient we discussed. It is explicitly described as a prospectively studied NDE with corroborated OBE perceptions, occurring in an intensive-therapy setting.

There was also a subsequent response to criticism:

Sartori, P. (2013).

“Response to ‘Critique of A Prospectively Studied Near-Death Experience with Corroborated Out-of-Body Perceptions and Unexplained Healing.’” Journal of Near-Death Studies, 32(1), 15–36.

DOI: 10.17514/jnds-2013-32-1-p15-36.

That follow-up is worth reading because it shows that the original case has been actively criticized and defended, rather than simply accepted uncritically.

3. Andrew Paquette — 92 veridical OBEs

Paquette, A. (2012).

“NDE Implications from a Group of Spontaneous Long Distance Veridical OBEs.” Journal of Scientific Exploration, 26(4), 791–824.

This is the citation for the 92 cases I mentioned.

Paquette reported that his database contained thousands of dream/OBE records and identified 92 OBEs judged veridical, with the accounts generally having been written down immediately after the experience and then compared with witnesses or subsequent information.

But there's an important distinction from Sartori: these are spontaneous OBE reports, not controlled prospective NDE observations during medically documented cardiac arrest. So they're useful as a large body of corroborated cases, but they're methodologically different.

4. Cook, Greyson & Stevenson — the major case-series paper

Cook, E. W., Greyson, B., & Stevenson, I. (1998).

“Do Any Near-Death Experiences Provide Evidence for the Survival of Human Personality after Death? Relevant Features and Illustrative Case Reports.” Journal of Scientific Exploration, 12(3), 377–406.

This is an especially important paper for what you've been asking about because it doesn't merely present one famous anecdote. It identifies three potentially evidential features:

1. unusually enhanced mentation,
2. perception of one's physical body from an external position, and
3. perceptions of events that apparently could not have been obtained through ordinary sensory channels.

They then examine 14 cases containing combinations of these features. The authors themselves are quite cautious: they explicitly acknowledge deficiencies in the recording and investigation of most of the cases.

The full paper is available from the University of Virginia's Division of Perceptual Studies and is also indexed in the Journal of Scientific Exploration.

5. Ring & Lawrence — three corroborated OBE cases

Ring, K., & Lawrence, M. (1993).

“Further Evidence for Veridical Perception During Near-Death Experiences.” Journal of Near-Death Studies, 11(4), 223–229.

This is another useful primary source. The authors specifically present three cases of OBE perception that they regarded as corroborated, while explicitly acknowledging that many alleged veridical NDE perceptions are poorly documented.

6. Kelly, Greyson & Stevenson — remote perception

Kelly, E. W., Greyson, B., & Stevenson, I. (1999–2000).

“Can Experiences Near Death Furnish Evidence of Life after Death?” Omega, 40(4), 513–519.

DOI: 10.2190/KNTM-6R07-LTVT-MC6K.

This is particularly relevant to your criterion of independently verified perceptions. They discuss enhanced cognition during severe physiological impairment, OBEs, and perception of remote events inaccessible to ordinary senses, including cases in which other people subsequently verified what was perceived.

If you're building a "strongest cases" bibliography

I'd put these at the top of your reading list:

And I'd distinguish these from Pam Reynolds, Maria's tennis-shoe case, etc., because those have substantially different evidential histories and degrees of controversy.

If your standard is specifically “the person was demonstrably physiologically incapable of ordinary perception at the relevant time + the perception was independently verified + the timing can be reasonably constrained,” then **Sartori and the best cases in Cook/Greyson/Stevenson are much more relevant to your argument than simply compiling famous NDE stories.**

There is overwhelming evidence for NDEs as your list of books suggests.

Well after looking closer theres not as strong of smoking guns as I had assumed,

As expected. You are heavily relying on AI to make your case, but I wonder if you have really critically evaluated what you're advocating. This hints at 'not so much'.

He has posted his scholarly citations that is very impressive. Where is your counter?

He has no citations from a respected journal that come to the same conclusions he advocates. The only thing he has is 'repeated nature of anecdotes' which puts his case alongside things like alien abductions and Bigfoot sightings. It's fringe.

He has cited more than anyone else on this subject. Dismissing them as fringe is unfair.

Should he get credit for a quantity of citations that do not substantiate his position? NDEs and OBEs are, by definition, fringe.

Fringe: something regarded as peripheral, marginal, secondary, or extreme in relation to something else.

They are indeed rare experiences, not necessarily fringe.