Evolving news on the science, writing and thinking about Near Death Experiences (NDEs)

If AWARE II doesn’t have a hit I’ll eat my laptop.

For those who don’t follow the comments sections in this blog, there has been a discussion about an article that appeared which has ultimately come from Sam Parnia’s department at NYU.

Is there life after death?

Firstly thanks to Eduardo for sending it to me first, although others picked it up as well. Secondly apologies for not posting it sooner. I tried on the WordPress App, but it crashed (I have to admit I find the app a bit useless for all but following comments, and even then it does not feel intuitive), and since then I have been very busy. I recently gave a talk to 250 people on my recent book on the origin of life and preparing for this sucked up all my time.

As others, and myself, have noted, the tone of this article is completely supportive of the understanding that the consciousness, or soul is an individual entity that is able to survive death. This article was clearly sanctioned by Dr. Parnia, as it is related to the What happens when we die meeting that is due to take place at NYU in November. This implies that he is absolutely of the belief that the consciousness survives death. The implications of this are very clear from my point of view. As a scientist to make such a stand is inviting derision unless there is strong evidence to support this position. hence my belief that he is now sitting on one or more “hits” (i.e. scientifically verfiied OBEs) from AWARE II.

Will he use this event in New York as a teaser for the study results? Please, can someone go and then report back here what happens…if I still lived in Canada I would have nipped over the border to attend, but since I am now back in the UK “nipping” is not an option. I am prepared to provide financial support with respect to the cost of registration if someone serious (i.e. an existing commenter) volunteers and agrees to provide me with a write up and maybe ask a question at either the daytime or evening event. Message me via the contact me link.

Single Post Navigation

104 thoughts on “If AWARE II doesn’t have a hit I’ll eat my laptop.

  1. Dr. Sam Parnia even before the release of AWARE I believed that NDEs prove a soul and he said it publicly in the debate with Dr. Nelson in Experiencing Death: An Insider’s Perspective in 2013 which was a part of the New York Academy of Sciences the same organisation which published his newest article and in when AWARE I came out it did not convince anyone because he had not a verified hit.

    So nothing has changed in Dr. Sam Parnias perspective and he made the same claims before he had the evidence in 2013, therefore I am not having my hopes up until I really see the finished study with the results because so far we have even counter evidence from Dr. Sam Parnia himself that people who had CA have some sort of brain like activity.


    • The one veridical perception in aware 1 was in 2011


      • Yes I know. It was the Mr. A case which happened in 2011 and verified a year later, thus in 2012 which does not give me confidence about the whole blinding procedure.

        This is however what I did not have in mind. In the debate Dr. Sam Parnia was sure he has proven the point that we have a soul but he did not because no one saw the images which would prove his point and convince even the strongest sceptics but that did not happened.

        Therefore I will wait for the full results personally.


    • I get where you’re coming from Lukas. It just seems that he is getting more strident in his position, especially in written material. Surely if his study had produced nothing after now recruiting hundreds of patients, he would be a little less vocal in his support of the dualist position. AWARE I was a huge disappointment and the one patient who had a “verified” hit was no more than had been observed from previous retrospective studies, and was in my view a nothingburger in terms of moving forward the accepted position.


  2. Paul M Battista on said:

    Can’t wait for aware 2 results


  3. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I would again urge everyone to be patient and not get too excited. The study will (eventually) be completed and he’s bound to have SOME interesting evidence. I don’t think I’m being overly confident about that. Whether or not he has a “hit” or “hits” is anybody’s guess (depending on the numbers) At the very least, he must have a veridical out of body experience or two.

    If he’s been able to successfully get EEG monitoring on the head of that person(s) showing no brainwaves (as was in the methodology) and that coincided with an accurate veridical description of what was occurring around that patient’s body (at that precise time etc) then that is something very significant. Basically consciousness without a brain.

    Sceptics can’t then start moving the goalposts “downwards” to the brain stem and try and tell us (propose) that the brain stem is now taking over the processing, because the brain stem stops functioning in cardiac arrest. If they do, they will only look very silly.

    It would be my hope that such a case would win Parnia much heavier funding for a massive study, maybe 10,000 cardiac arrests which would cost millions.


  4. I totally agree with you! Lets be patient and hope that at least he will have found out enough to get more funding for an even bigger study.


  5. This title reminds me of this

    Ben were you thinking about that quote?


  6. Chad it is true. Dr. Sam Parnia even in 2003 suggested that the mind is separated from the brain:

    On the other hand, Sam Parnia, clinical research fellow at the University of Southampton, and Peter Fenwick, consultant neuropsychiatrist at the University of London, argue that the evidence suggests a separation of mind and brain.


    Also in the the document itself The Day I Died it is stated that Peter Fenwick, Sam Parnia and Pim Van Lommel are pioneering this kind of research. You can find the document whole on The Day I Died on daylimotion. The sequence where the moderator connects these names is from 2:25.

    So he was pro-soul back then. His position just got stronger after AWARE I even when he did not had the evidence others were looking for. Also remember that AWARE I was not the first study of Dr. Sam Parnia there were others before it and they were negative.

    Therefore I will wait.


    • Paul Hawtin on said:

      Hello Lukas. As far as I’m aware (pun intended) Aware 1 was the first in depth study of it’s kind. Do you have a link to similar studies ty.



    • @Lukas

      The data itself, that is veridical out of body experiences, has always favoured a mind brain separation (or soul as you like to put it), never mind what researchers may secretly think or say. Because that is what the people who provide the data (patients) actually say.

      Almost without exception, everyone who has an out of body experience related to coming back from a critical illness or cardiac arrest are adamant that they really did leave their bodies. In addition, they have provided and continue to provide, accurate reports of what went on around their physical bodies when they shouldn’t be able to.

      Don’t kid yourself that sceptics have debunked all the cases. They haven’t debunked any of them; it’s always been simply a case of them twisting the facts and telling lies…spreading misinformation… in effect because they don’t like the implications of this phenomenon suggests.

      That piece commenting on “The day I died” you’ve linked to (by Michael Obrien) is inaccurate and a fairly typical example of their behaviour in general.

      O’Brien >>> “Throughout the programme there is considerable confusion about death, near death, and anaesthesia. Patients are often described as being “clinically dead” and then recovering. This is to misunderstand the definition of death. An important criterion in the certification of death is the irrecoverable cessation of brain function. This definition precludes anaesthesia as clinical death since the brain is fully oxygenated with a normal blood flow and recovery occurs without brain damage; indeed, this definition of death precludes anyone who subsequently recovers.

      The programme also states that an isoelectric EEG (electroencephalogram) is an indicator of brain death, which is not correct. It is entirely possible for some neuronal activity to persist, though not in a sufficiently widespread or integrated fashion to be recorded at the surface.

      Psychologist Susan Blackmore proposes a purely physical explanation for these events and suggests that the experiences are recollections of what happens as consciousness is lost or as it is regained, but not while unconscious. The induction of endorphins might cause heightened awareness with tranquillity and Dr Blackmore sees no reason to postulate a separation of mind and brain.”<< ” This is to misunderstand the definition of death. An important criterion in the certification of death is the irrecoverable cessation of brain function. ”

      That is simply not true. Pam Reynolds was dead by every medical criteria for one hour and was brought back. The surgeons have told us she was dead many times. That is the protocol of the operation, make them effectively dead (stop all brain and bodily functions, drain the blood from the body and cool them down to a tombstone temperature to preserve the cells). Obviously she wasn’t “declared dead” because the intention was to bring her back (they are not always successful at this).

      How about Dr Lloyd Rudy’s patient ? He was dead for 25 minutes. They had pronounced him dead and told his wife, so a death certificate must have been written out by them. Was he not dead ? Of course he was dead…but he came back, for some bizarre reason. So Dr O’Brien is/was wrong, I’m afraid.

      Why hasn’t O’Brien retracted that statement or removed it ? Because he can get away with it, he’s a neurologist, an expert source of authority.

      Second paragraph O’Brien said > “It is entirely possible for some neuronal activity to persist, though not in a sufficiently widespread or integrated fashion to be recorded at the surface” <

      So here, our sceptical neurologist is abandoning everything he's been taught in medical school about how the brain works, and is postulating that even though the cortex, (the part of the brain where our whole sense of self and all our thoughts and emotions arise), is/was totally dis-functional ( Flat EEG), some "other" part of the brain (deep down) somehow takes over and normal service (cognitive abilities) resumes, just for the duration of the NDE 🙂 What a load of bollocks !

      There is not a shred of evidence to support such a claim but O'Brien is quite prepared to abandon everything he's learnt about how the brain works to accomplish his goal.

      And then of course it gets picked up and passed around and some people swallow it. And so it goes….


      • The cases you mentioned are collected years after it happened that is one problem along with the fact that human memory is weak and frail. The second problem is that even in many countries you get a lot of information from your own physician, nurses and doctors what will happen to you or what has happened to you in the first place if its a emergency operation.

        You do not get a standstill operation with zero knowledge it is unethical and you can sue the personal for it.

        Therefore I want controlled tests then I will believe and if someone sees the cards it is a controlled test and the needed evidence.


      • They are never going to get hits on hidden, secret, real-time visual targets.

        That does cause a problem for the idea that something leaves the body. But it’s not a problem for the idea of information going into the body – but not necessarily through the senses.


    • He only said it might be true and he was interested in studying the phenomenon. He was definitely not “pro soul” before aware 1. You’re confusing interest in studying with proponent of NDEs. One has to believe a bit to study this extremely stigmatised and underfunded subject. He said on multiple occasions his doesnt think these are hallucinations because of veridical perception he or his colleagues witnessed, but he hasn’t described those veridical perceptions so we can’t examine it rigorously.


  7. There were two studies that come in mind before AWARE I. There are maybe more but I know about these two besides the unofficial ones:

    A paper summarizing results from a five-year prospective study of NDEs conducted in a Welsh hospital in the United Kingdom. Interesting findings include pharmacological impact, differentiation from hallucinations, and effects of various conditions on the frequency of NDEs………..

    At the time of commencement of this study, most NDE research was retrospective (Moody 1975, Ring 1980, Sabom 1982, Morse et al., 1985). A similar study (Parnia et al., 2001) was commenced at the same time as this study and followed a similar protocol, both projects being supervised by Dr Peter Fenwick. Further prospective studies have since been published (Parnia et al., 2001, van Lommel et al., 2001, Schwaninger et al., 2002, Greyson 2003).

    The aim of this study was to establish if reductionist arguments of anoxia, hypercarbia or drug administration could explain the NDE. It was attempted to verify the out of body component by placing brightly coloured symbols (which could only be viewed from an out of body perspective) on top of the cardiac monitor at each patient’s bedside.


    One was done by Penny Sartori which was 5 years in the making and the second one was done by Dr. Sam Parnia.

    There were also some unofficial attempts by sceptics who worked in hospitals on the JREF forums who place cards above the patients in the past. It was maybe 8 years ago what I read and if I can remember correctly and all came back negative.


    • @Lukas

      Lukas said >”There were also some unofficial attempts by sceptics who worked in hospitals on the JREF forums who place cards above the patients in the past. It was maybe 8 years ago what I read and if I can remember correctly and all came back negative.”

      Unless you have some factual evidence that this experiment actually occurred, I would regard it as complete nonsense. To conduct such an experiment in any medical facility, requires a lot of preparation and permission from the various committees.

      You can’t just go sticking cards up on the ceiling in hospitals to see whether patients have had an out of body experience. Any nurse or Doctor who did such a thing would be disciplined and probably dismissed. And that goes for the janitor, too.


      • The quote from the person:

        I work as an equipment fixer guy in a hospital. I feel a little silly about this, but after seeing a show on TEEVEE describing a similar, or possibly the same, claim offered by the non-debunker, I placed a learn-to-read flashcards on the top arm of all the OR lights after I did maintenance on them. I swiped the cards from my daughter… you know those ones that say CAT, and there’s a picture of a cat, or DOG with the picture of the dog? We get the occassional patient that recounts the “floating over my body watching the operation” tale, after their surgery while they are in the post anesthesia recovery unit. I told all the PACU nurses about my little experiment, and they’re playing along. They told me they’ve had a few “floaters”, but no hits yet.



      • @tim:

        Found the quote down below is the reply with the source and also from personal experience you can do things like these in hospitals. Not everything is Ford Knox you know and people swindle, bring stuff to place they should not and get away with it. It depends on what good terms you are with your superiors if you are a friend of family with them you can get away with it.


      • @Lukas

        That’s from 2003. I know some of the sceptics on that thread. I don’t know where you are in the world but I assure you, In the UK, you wouldn’t get away with anything like that (guaranteed). Two of my oldest friends are consultant doctors and my wife used to be a nurse. (as well as on older girlfriend many years ago).

        Interestingly, an American anaesthesiologist recently reported a case in which one of his patients correctly read a number on the top of one of the operating room lights (many digits) whilst he was having an operation in which all his vital signs were stopped.

        The patient entered the operating room in cardiac arrest and was put in a state of suspended animation (hypothermic cooling). He left the operating room in a coma but reported his observation when he eventually woke up (apparently).

        Is that a hit ? I would say so (in principle) but of course sceptics will say that it didn’t really happen that way or the anaesthesiologist made it all up, or the patient was the guy who installed the lights.


      • Tim

        Dr.Rudy got away with it:

        There are many non sterile equipment in an operating room including monitors. Monitors are close range so surgeons can “monitor different parameters through the case”. The message to Dr. Rudy I believe were taped to a monitor that sits close to the end of the operating table, up in the air, close enough for anybody to see what it is there, like the patient for example if he was looking at it. (R.Amado-Cattaneo, personal communication, February 15h 2013).


        So it applies to small things. Dr. Rudy made no study and he posted his stamps on a monitor in the first place.


    • Dr. Rudy got away with it he posted his stamps on a monitor in the operation room and he was not doing any study:

      There are many non sterile equipment in an operating room including monitors. Monitors are close range so surgeons can “monitor different parameters through the case”. The message to Dr. Rudy I believe were taped to a monitor that sits close to the end of the operating table, up in the air, close enough for anybody to see what it is there, like the patient for example if he was looking at it. (R.Amado-Cattaneo, personal communication, February 15h 2013).

      From Dr. Rudy and the study done by Titus Riva.

      As for the case you mentioned. I read about it few years back it was mentioned on the Skeptiko forum but nothing more was collaborated. It was mentioned by Dr. Dr. Norma Bowe if I recall correctly.


      • @Lukas

        I’m not sure what you mean in your reference to Lloyd Rudy’s patient ? Do you mean you believe the patient somehow “saw” the post it notes with his physical eyes, because they were on a monitor close to where he was lying ?

        Dr Roberto Cattaneo told us (so did Rudy) that the patient did NOT wake up until several days later. Also his eyes were taped shut and he was loaded up with anaesthetics etc.

        He also saw the two doctors standing in the doorway discussing what they could have done to prevent his death. Surely you can’t be suggesting that he opened his eyes and saw that ?

        Secondly the case I mentioned above was not that one reported by Norma Bowe. It was reported by Chris Yerrington MD and I’ve already posted it once on here in a different thread.


      • Here is the case reported by Chris Yerington MD

        Christopher Yerington, M.D. Medicine & Anesthesiology, Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine (1998)

        Updated Nov 29, 2018 · Upvoted by

        Paul Regalos Urban, Ph.D Life and Living, School of Hard Knocks and
        John Nagel, Emergency Physician

        In 11 years and over 15,000 anaesthetics, I only had one — the strangest experience.

        “Frank” (not the patient’s real name) was in emergency heart surgery in the late evening while I was on 24-hour call. It was about 11 pm, I think, when the case began.

        Frank was basically dead upon arrival to the operating room and ‘trying to put Frank under’ was not challenging: all I had to do was maintain Frank’s horrific vital signs as the surgical team crashed onto cardiopulmonary bypass.

        Ninety minutes later it was decided that in order to repair the heart and aorta we had to place Frank into complete circulatory arrest. Normally, any more time than 45 minutes of circulatory-Arrest leads to bad outcomes.

        We cooled Frank’s body, chilled his brain/head with ice, and then discontinued Frank’s cardiopulmonary bypass machine for 94 minutes. No circulation for 94 minutes! Not good.

        We eventually got Frank to the ICU at about 5:30 am. About 8 am I went home after 25 hours’ straight in the hospital.

        I habitually check on all my cases when I come back to the hospital. It was between cases, about 11:30 am on that day, when I walked through the ICU to check on what had happened to Frank. (I expected Frank to die during my post-call day.)

        He was awake. Shocked…I made sure I had the correct patient. I went over the prior 30 hours of labs and vital signs. Just a real solid recovery, medically speaking.

        The next day, Frank was awake again, talking and asking for a second breakfast. He said, “Dr. Yerington, I want to thank you for what you did in there.”

        I glanced down, no ID badge on me…. I was in scrubs, same color as everyone else, and I had not introduced myself.

        He said, “I’d recognize your voice anywhere.” I approached the hospital bed and properly introduced myself.

        Frank must have noticed my look of incredulity as I was doing a poor job of hiding it on my face.

        “Don’t worry, everyone has that look when I tell them and they find out I was awake the entire time in the operating room.”

        My heart literally skipped a beat. My mouth went instantly dry. Total recall is rare, and it’s really absolutely rare when you are clinically dead before the operation and then dead for another 94 minutes in the middle of the operation!

        When I finally spoke I reverted to the pre-packaged versions of what they teach us to say in these situations, “I’m really glad to see you awake. Tell me more.” Simple, non-committal and open-ended questioning to seek answers and explanations from the patient — because my medical training told me: not possible!

        Frank looked at me, a big even smile on his face: “I know what you did and said in there. You never gave up on me. Even when the surgeon said it was over and y’all should call it.”

        He then read from memory the three serial numbers off the tops of the three operating lights in OR #20, finally adding, “I was trapped up there on the ceiling staring down at the whole thing…. Those stupid numbers and letters were the only thing I could read. I love reading.”

        I’m a talkative, verbose guy naturally, but I was speechless. Frank rattled on for nearly 15 minutes retelling his experience. I’m thinking “lawsuit” the entire time he’s talking but this man is just honestly really happy to be alive, really grateful we were all there…and really hungry.

        Frank left the hospital about two weeks later and went into an extended cardiac rehab. I never looked him up to see what had happened. I don’t know how long he lived. Nothing like this has ever happened to me again, nor to my brother nor my wife (both anaesthesiologists) but that surgeon, that surgical team and myself, plus the other anaesthesiologist in the room, were completely dumbfounded.

        I practiced at that hospital for another three years. When I was with that surgeon he would joke with me: “Chris, make sure this one is asleep for me.…” HA ha… LOL. Not funny.

        I will say, oddly, we watched what we said more carefully in that surgeon’s operating room during future cardiac cases. It’s maybe superstition, maybe just awe, at the human condition because it never stops amazing us and as much as we believe we know…we just don’t know everything.



      • @Tim:

        Nope. I meant that Dr. Rudy got away to tape to a monitor that sits close to the end of the operating table which means that the sceptic from JREF forum could have posted those cards because Dr. Rudy did this on a normal basis without any permission or doing a study.

        As for the case its main weakness to convince me personally is this:

        This case happened some time late 1990’s early 2000’s. I do not know the patient’s identity anymore. Neither do I think we can find out, unfortunately. It has been too long and I do not have any records of that case anymore.

        This is from Titus Riva a e-mail he received from Amado-Cattaneo.

        As for the case of Frank there is a similar case written by Norma Bowe:

        One of them reported by Dr. Norma Bowe from Kean University. The patient suffered an extreme case of OCD, which led her to having a counting problem. What is remarkable about this case is she saw a 12 digit serial number where the only way to see the serial number would be if you had a ladder in order to see it from a standing position .

        As it would be impossible to read the 12 digit serial number from just a standing position. More can be found here, just scroll down the page to just about the bottom of the page.


        As for the Frank case it is interesting but it has a weakness because we do not know any more details, who the person was and other details that Dr. Sam Parnia is hunting for. We have only a story and Dr. Yerrington himself claims that he had in 11 years and over 15,000 of anesthetics behind himself. So I personally would rather check the story out more with more details. It can be that he connects two surgeries or there are other possibilities but that is just my personal opinion and that is why studies like AWARE are needed to find out the truth.

        Because before we started to look into this no one would even claim that there is seizure like brain activity or that during CPR you can regain consciousness therefore I will personally wait.


  8. Paul Hawtin on said:

    Thanks Lukas. Interesting link. I think the studies conclusion at the end sums up it up nicely……

    It must be noted that the sample is too small to be statistically significant; however, the combination of all data from recent and retrospective research provides a large amount of evidence, which can no longer be ignored or explained away. Current reductionist arguments are not supported when this phenomenon is examined in the clinical area. It is therefore essential that further research is conducted in order to establish a wider explanation of the NDE………

    Let’s see what Aware 2 delivers. Please note as well there were verified OBE’s in the study despite the relatively small number of patients involved – the sample size in Aware 2 will be far greater.


    • @Lukas

      Lukas said > “Nope. I meant that Dr. Rudy got away to tape to a monitor that sits close to the end of the operating table which means that the sceptic from JREF forum could have posted those cards because Dr. Rudy did this on a normal basis without any permission or doing a study.”

      Sorry Lukas, I don’t understand what you’re getting at there. Never mind.

      Lukas said > ” As for the case its main weakness to convince me personally is this:

      This case happened some time late 1990’s early 2000’s. I do not know the patient’s identity anymore. Neither do I think we can find out, unfortunately. It has been too long and I do not have any records of that case anymore.

      That’s not a weakness, Lukas. The case stands up as it is. We either accept that Dr Rudy and Dr Cattaneo are reporting it accurately/correctly or they invented it, for whatever reason sceptics might like to speculate. It’s absurd to postulate such a thing, but I agree, the case is not scientific ‘proof’ of anything, no single case ever could be.

      However when you have hundreds of these reports from reliable sources all over the world, it makes it almost beyond probability that every one never happened the way it was reported. That’s where we are now.

      There’s no doubt in most people’s minds that something very perplexing is going on. For hard line sceptics like Novella (ideological deniers), I don’t think even “hits” in Aware will be enough to change his mind. People like him (Ideologues) will try and smear the study, maybe suggesting it wasn’t carried out correctly and contamination must have occurred or something along those lines.


      • With the stickers I am getting at that in some hospitals you can post cards in operation rooms or even stickers without the need of a permission because Dr. Rudy did that.

        I am not a hard line sceptic. I am just a normal one. I know how memory works and people have their flaws that is all. Also I am open-minded but not only to the soul thing but to other explanations as well. I will wait what will come that is all.

        I just want evidence, not stories because stories are not evidence for me. Stories are hints that something is happening that needs to be investigated. That is all. Thanks for the good discussion.


  9. In Dr. Parnias study 2001 there was no one with a OBE and in Penny Sartories study no one saw the cards from the people who had a OBE and that counts for me personally.

    Therefore I will wait and see.


  10. Paul Hawtin on said:

    In Sartorie’s study only 2 people had an ‘OBE’. I’m personally not going to base anything on such a small number not seeing a card.

    However I accept your point – let’s wait and see.


    • It does not matter if only one person had a OBE if he would have seen the card it would be a hit and it would convince a lot of people that NDEs are really After-Death Experiences and not just NDEs because even people who are not near death or have a CA have NDEs and point that even Dr. Bruce Greyson agrees in his newest study: Neurochemical models of near-death experiences: a large-scale study based on the semantic similarity of written reports.

      Until then I will wait for AWARE II results.


  11. Paul Hawtin on said:

    Lukas wrote

    ……..It does not matter if only one person had a OBE if he would have seen the card it would be a hit and it would convince a lot of people that NDEs are really After-Death Experiences…….

    True. No cards seen yet but plenty of verified NDE’s ?


  12. I would not say verified. There is something going on but what? We do not know. If someone sees those cards then it would prove that we have a soul if no one ever sees the cards we would still need to explain these experiences and if a person does regain consciousness or what is actually going on. Or where is the source of the knowledge of the person etc.

    Look no one even expected that someone would regain consciousness during a CPR. No one ever expected that people can have seizure like brain activity during CA but both things happened. Therefore I am waiting for official results to move it forward because there can be actually a more complex answer to these experiences.


    • Hey Lukas! Nice comments! Thank you for them. It is really important to be very skeptical. But for me it seems that you want the exsistence of a “soul” so badly proven that you want bulletproof proofs? Am I right in suggesting so? And sorry if this question is to personal, it is not my intention to come to close to your personal opinions. I am just very curious:)


  13. @max:

    No problem I will answer your question.

    I want the soul proven but I want solid scientific evidence for it, not stories because human memory and story telling changes over the years and proves nothing for me. I know many people take these stories as evidence but I take them just as hints that something is going on and that something must be investigated if its true or not.

    Take for example one this NDE:

    Alex Malarkey co-wrote a bestselling book about a near-death experience – and then last week admitted he made it up.

    There were already a million copies made.

    This is why I am sceptical no offence to no one here, this is my personal view but people lie, make up stories to create thrill or drama. Also faulty memory is in the way and we also as a humans me included like to create bigger drama in stories etc.. Another thing which bothers me and I found in many cases is that these events are recorded year or years after it happened and the last thing is which bothers me that no one is taking into account that there are preoperative information or information after the operation.

    That is why if we want to know the truth we have to have studies like AWARE with hits that will resolve the debate for me it would.


    • I’m a bit sceptical about Eben Alexander’s NDE if I’m honest.


    • Although, just to add, the guardian is a rabidly atheist paper.


      • It is also in other newspapers and here is his open letter:

        n January 13, 2015, Alex Malarkey released an open letter to Christian publishers and bookstores via the Christian Apologetics blog known as Pulpit and Pen, confessing that the entire account of his journey to Heaven was fictional, and implored them to remove the book from their stores. In his letter he notes:

        “Please forgive the brevity, but because of my limitations I have to keep this short. I did not die. I did not go to Heaven. I said I went to Heaven because I thought it would get me attention. When I made the claims that I did, I had never read the Bible. People have profited from lies, and continue to. They should read the Bible, which is enough. The Bible is the only source of truth. Anything written by man cannot be infallible. It is only through repentance of your sins and a belief in Jesus as the Son of God, who died for your sins (even though he committed none of his own) so that you can be forgiven may you learn of Heaven outside of what is written in the Bible… not by reading a work of man. I want the whole world to know that the Bible is sufficient. Those who market these materials must be called to repent and hold the Bible as enough.

        In Christ, Alex Malarkey.”[24]



    • Thank you Lukas! I appreciate your honest answer! And I agree with you 100%! Studies like AWARE with “hits” would be the most convincing thing for the existence of a “soul” to me.


    • Yes this is a good point, you should give more thoughts to this than reading pseudoskeptics circle jerking like in your post above. I never bother with NDEs that’s received mainstream attention, I myself (and everyone here too except the newbies) can easily make up a fully convincing NDE because we know the exact features. Nobody actually takes these anecdotes seriously, but they give people the motivation to study NDE rigorously. Parnia said he got into NDEs because of these anecdotes (and a patient that died which made him wonder what happened to his consciousness), Fenwick too. The only anecdotes I can take are Pam Reynolds and Al Sullivan, because of multiple independent parties corroborating on very unusual veridical perception. I can’t even take Van Lommel’s dentures seriously. Indeed aware 2 is the only way to settle this question, and given parnia’s tone at the very least either he had a hit or no one had OBE yet (otherwise they would be in a position to see the ipad and if they still dont see it that proves NDEs are hallucination).

      You must also understand many of these NDEs seem to happen during a time 1 minute or more into cardiac arrest. Without no blood flow 1 minute on, consciousness is flat out impossible. Ofc you could argue people obtained information later accidently from convo with nurse, or CPR provides some blood blow, though parnia denied this would be enough it cannot be shown rigorously and there was that article about a patient being slightly conscious during CPR. The total body of evidence isn’t strong but also isn’t weak, if NDEs are hallucinations then it’s still gonna be a hell of a task to explain how people are hyper lucid during a period of very low blood flow. Anyone with very low blood pressure knows what happens when blood stops coming to the brain. And why NDEs are there in the first place, evolutionary wise brain should be completely off in life threatening situations to preserve oxygen not dream about la la land.


      • There are plenty of simple organisms which don’t have neurons, but they navigate spacetime, find food, cooperate, and apparently behave intelligently. Because they don’t have any firing neutrons, you couldn’t in principle pick up any EEG signal. There’s no post synaptic potentials to pick up. They don’t have neurons. But they still behave intelligently, even finding mates, and having sex.

        Therefore nature already has a suitable mechanism… the evidence is already there.


      • @ Max_B Your point is?

        Liked by 1 person

      • The point was to address Chads evolutionary assumption, which is just that, an assumption, and probably incorrect. Nature appears to have already evolved an older mechanism that does plenty, and which does not require any firing neurons at all. That opens the door to lots of interesting speculations about what is doing the processing for these older organisms, in the absence of them having any neurons.


  14. If a soul exists, it surely can’t be proven. I doubt there would be any hits, because it would mess up our world, our existence so much in a way so drastic that no “higher power” would allow.

    Would you imagine how many suicides would there be? How many people doing reckless stuff without any fear of death or injury, if afterlife was proven with 100% accuracy?

    No, I think there will be no hits.


  15. I also dont really think that Parnia has hits (yet) And the question of a “higher power” is a quit different one. To your statement with the suicides and recklessness behaviour, I dont know if this would really be the consequence of a “proven” “afterlife”.
    But still quite an interesting and important thought!:)


  16. Lukas are you really going to take the words of some random skeptic on a skeptic forum about NDEs? Do you take youtube comments seriously too? Because I’ve read my share of comments saying they had very precise perception of hospital equipments, yet they don’t change my position in the slightest. This a very silly link to even suggest. First of all you weed out all the pseudoskeptics and fanatic proponents. Second you weed out all “low quality studies”. I only trust a few people on NDEs, and unfortunately there aren’t many studies not of low quality.


    • @Chad:

      I read what both sides have to say but I decided if something is relevant or not.

      Also which link do you think of?

      My point is what you said Chad that there are so many stories out there with NDEs and many people make them up. For example like you said a person who had read a NDE can duplicate it even with a OBE component. Therefore my point is that we need quality studies and I admit that it takes effort and dedication what is Dr. Sam Parnia doing and the others which they deserve applause but I liked the approach of Penny Sartori more. She waited and was quiet when she was making the study and commented when it was released about it. She did not visit TV shows etc before the study and commented out of the ordinary things.. as far as I know.

      I know that Dr. Sam Parnia is doing these promotions to promote his study and NDEs in general but sometimes I get the feeling he is becoming too media friendly and even sometimes contradicts what other researchers are saying like Dr. Bruce Greyson with the whole After-Death Experiences without giving us the evidence of those hits and that raises by me a red flag and I hope it will not just end like AWARE I. I just dont like empty hype and promises that is all.


      • The link was a skeptic forum you mentioned above.

        I agree, now that you mentioned it Parnia IS becoming too media friendly. Maybe it’s because media is inviting him a lot more than e.g. Greyson. When you mentioned this i do wish he would be more covert, reject media invitations if that’s the reason. Afterlife research can be easily contaminated by wishful thinking so extra skepticism needs to be taken on part of the researchers, people need to go in with the mindset that it’s all a hallucination, while also not being a pseudoskeptic self righteous moron, and see if the new data is extraordinary enough to convince them otherwise. Parnia isn’t taking this attitude unfortunately. Also which Greyson article are you talking about?

        About the stories, the vast majority of NDE accounts I dont take seriously as I have mentioned. Pam Reynolds & Al Sullivan are the only cases I consider worthy of being labelled as evidence. There’s a case from Laurin Bellg about a cardiac arrest guy who saw the training room full of mannequins and computer above his floor, if it had the same level of corroboration as the 2 cases i mentioned it would be pretty much airtight, but I can’t take it seriously because of the severe lack of details and independent corroboration.


  17. Eduardo Jorge on said:

    I wonder, however, many things: one is whether it is the media or it is Parnia that are “doing” promotion …. Do not forget that the Aware is in force since September 2008, the date it was launched in Nations United the project … they are many years older than the study of Sartori …. It is natural that it has more press, also because there was already a promised advertisement in Aware I. What I wonder is why a patient died that suspiciously If you are aware, you should see a certain object, being that in a room or an operating room there are many other objects where in principle the patient could also put his attention. It has already been said at other times in this forum, the patient could be living things that are more important to him than looking at a simple object, drawing or I pad. In addition to other factors that play against the success of the study such as the large number of patients who die before reporting their experience. Only 38 recruited out of 3 688 cardiac arrests is very unlikely to see hidden targets visible only from the ceiling.


    • @Chad:

      The name of the paper is: Neurochemical models of near-death experiences: A large-scale study based on the semantic similarity of written reports. It is free on research gate.

      The paragraph in question which I believe contradicts what Dr. Sam Parnia is telling that NDEs are After-Death Experiences:

      NDEs can occur in situations in which the threat is only apparent or even absent (e.g. NDE-like phenomenology during hypnagogic or meditative states) and brain cells are not under direct stress (Fenwick 1997).

      Dr. Bruce Greyson cites the study of Dr. Fenwick and here is the source: Fenwick, P. (1997). “Is the near-death experience only N-methyl-D-aspartate blocking?” Journal of Near-Death Studies 16: 42-53. I was trying to find the whole study of Dr. Fenwick but could not find it whole. My main point is here that Dr. Fenwick in 1997 wrote that NDEs can happen when you are not near-death or even like Dr. Sam Parnia calls After-Death.

      Also the whole study is quite interesting.


      • Oh that’s what you mean. Yes I’ve seen the well known researchers say NDE like experience occur under extreme stress or extreme depression, without any physical harm. This is a very good skeptic argument against NDEs. Parnia said because brain states are unknown during these situations, he is studying only cardiac arrest NDEs since he knows what’s going on with the brain and it’s also clinically repeatable and observable, unlike the other situations. By ADE he’s only referring to cardiac arrest NDEs, which is indeed true if there’s no CPR, a person is defined by their consciousness doesn’t matter if cells aren’t dead. No consciousness = dead.


      • Alternatively, I think that the NDE or NDE like event can occur in any brain state can be out forward as arguably that the experience is external to the brain. Moody argued this in the related concept of shared death experience’s whereby the participant would share a NDE of a dying person but they themselves are alive and would have one presumes a ordinary brain state (since they are in a normal living state physically)


  18. Having survived few shamanic ceremonies of Ayahuasca in Peruvian Amazon Jungle, I can definitely confirm that something else than rational mind observes really exist. To be honest, I do not care, whether somebody calls it God, collective consciousness or memory of the Species. For me, the only important feature is way of perception of this supernatural element: own experience (spirituality and seeking) or analyzing somebody else’s (religion or science). I do prefer knowing and experiencing life and it’s mysteries myself, not just being told by somebody who did or did not prove something.


  19. Anyone who still wishes to remain unconvinced, should reconsider the critical question about NDE’s, namely WHEN do they occur ? There is no doubt even amongst hard line sceptics that people have NDE’s and they are real (to them at least). So when do they happen?

    Sticking to the cardiac arrest model, can it legitimately be argued that they occur just as the person drops down dead, before the brain stops functioning after heart stoppage ?

    That’s highly improbable, because we know even when people faint, their consciousness is gone in a second. Trying to fit the stages of the NDE…the observation of their own body, the trip down the tunnel, the meeting with the being of light/life review and then the return, into that space of time (one/two seconds) seconds is surely out of the question.

    In addition, such an experience should be completely lost, anyway, as short term memory is the most susceptible to brain trauma (of which cardiac arrest is one worst apparently)

    So does it occur when brain function is returning and they are regaining consciousness ? That doesn’t really work either as NDE’s are described as being ultra clear and expansive, more real than real; the most impressive experience they have ever had in their lives.

    Borrowing medical jargon from the professionals, cardiac arrest is known to be a massive ‘insult’ to the brain, which leads to confusion (confused states), anxiety and catastrophic loss of memory, similar to a traumatic head injury. How can it arise during this period ?

    So when does it occur. We have hundreds of veridical cases of patients who have observed their own resuscitations and correctly described what went on in detail. I don’t need to elaborate on that.

    What prevents us from being confident that it occurs when the patients say it does, namely when the brain is not functioning ? The sceptics have no good answer to this question, only that it CANNOT occur then.

    But by logical deduction we can see that it MUST occur then (when the brain isn’t functioning) because there isn’t anywhere else to fit it into and as outlandish as that sounds, I don’t think that’s unreasonable based on the evidence we already have.


    • justin Echevarria on said:

      I’m busy so I’m not going to check back in but I though I should post this video. Please read papers or books published by Brandon Rickabaugh, Edward Feser, Jp Moreland, Robert Koons ect. Philosophy of mind is important to learn. Materialist of all kinds including philosophers have been ignoring the evidence and arguments for the Soul for a long time and its annoying to the max. They don’t understand or read relevant books lets not make the same mistake. Lets gain knowledge.


      • > “Tim I really didn’t want to say but since you keep pushing your agenda. I’ve seen on another blog you debate Keith Augustine and he called you a troll, and you said something unpleasant back. You have exactly the same attitude as him, both of you are trolls with an unshakeable ideology repeating the same weak arguments, trying to convert followers to your side.”

        You need to get your facts straight young Chad, before making statements like that without any grounds for doing so. I did NOT “debate” Keith Augustine on Ask the Atheist. Someone styled “Kamil” copied and pasted a post I’d made on here previously about the Pam Reynolds case and then Keith Augustine commented on it (that post) calling me a troll for reasons best known to himself.

        I had never heard of the blog site Ask the Atheist and I had no idea that Keith had made that rather rude post about me. I came across that site completely by accident and when I saw what Keith had said, I posted a reply. The reply was not rude at all. There was no debate with Keith, just the one return post I made. BTW someone else on there is/was posting as Tim but that is not me.

        From Wikipedia :

        “In Internet slang, a troll is a person who starts quarrels or upsets people on the Internet to distract and sow discord by posting inflammatory and digressive,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the intent of provoking readers into displaying emotional responses[2] and normalizing tangential discussion,[3] whether for the troll’s amusement or a specific gain”

        Chad, would you like to explain how my posts about NDE’s on a blog that focusses on NDE’s amounts to trolling ? I always make an effort to present facts and relevant evidence. It’s fair to say that there is some repetition in my posts, but it’s hard not to when commenting about NDE’s. Your posts also contain repeated arguments you’ve already made.


      • Tim i dont want to started arguing over something so off topic. I think you should pushing your views down other people’s throat, you act almost as bad as the meat robot propaganda spammers. That’s all.


    • Tim I really didn’t want to say but since you keep pushing your agenda. I’ve seen on another blog you debate Keith Augustine and he called you a troll, and you said something unpleasant back. You have exactly the same attitude as him, both of you are trolls with an unshakeable ideology repeating the same weak arguments, trying to convert followers to your side. You two will do well to convince simple minded people who can’t think for themselves, but people who actually take the time to come to this blog are smart enough look at the literature in detail and make up their own mind.


      • Play nicely please! You’ve both been on here ages and make good contributions. There’s nothing wrong with expressing strong views, and even arguing about them…that’s how we get closer to finding the truth, but please avoid name calling. No threats from me…you’re both “permanent members” ….just a request for civility.


      • @Chad

        Chad said >”Tim i dont want to started arguing over something so off topic. I think you should (stop) pushing your views down other people’s throat, you act almost as bad as the meat robot propaganda spammers. That’s all.”

        I don’t remember “pushing my views down people’s throats”. This is a comments blog where “thoughts” about NDE’s are exchanged all the time. My comments are definitely pro-the reality of NDE’s based on my judgement of the evidence. Read them or ignore them, simple.

        To be so critical about someone else’s contributions, one might assume that your posts are beyond criticism. In fact many of your entries are quite unintelligible and not just because English probably isn’t your first language.

        More to the point, that’s the second time you’ve aimed insults at me. You appear to me (at least) to be something of an impatient young “hot head”, who has taken it upon himself to decide what the criteria will be for accepting NDE’s as real…multiple hits on a series of numbers read from Parnia’s laptop….OR they’re defintely hallucinations ! Talk about throwing the baby out with the bath water.

        Have you any idea how challenging it’s going to be to get disembodied “minds” to float right over the top of “something” they will have no interest in…to see what’s on the top of it…and then remember it. Yes, that’s a piece of cake, isn’t it !

        And Chad wants multiple “hits” or Chad’s not going to accept that NDE’s are really having an out of body experience. Good for you, young Chad that’s the way to address the issue.

        Address it whichever way you want to, but kindly don’t address me again.


      • Yes i dont think its challenging the way parnia set it up this time, an OBEr can’t miss it. You claim to be publishing your thoughts yet here and other places you have a very direct tone similar to pseudoskeptics, and trying to influence other people. I remember a comment from you on a book “myth of the afterlife” at, you know i have no sympathy for staunch materialists but that was too much. And which of my entries are unintelligible? Everyone makes grammar/spelling mistakes, I often type something completely unrelated to what im thinking and dont realize it until someone tells me.

        And I absolutely think multiple independent teams need OBEs before this can be accepted as real. If Parnia succeeds it would be a huge support but not 100% proven yet, there needs to be follow ups from other people obtaining the same results. I don’t think you’re aware of the rigour science demands. At least this is the level of rigour REAL science demands, not science pretenders like most things that claim to be “scientific”.


      • Frankly, I have actually been wondering if Chad himself is a troll for ages. There was a trollish user named “Incel” that came here a while ago. Then, shortly after he was exposed as such Chad appeared. “Chad”/“Incel” are two related terms (antonyms) that are favored in troll communities to discuss sexual topics.


      • Hi Eric, while this recent conversation has had an unpleasant tone, and I am keeping an eye on things, I don’t think Chad is a troll. He has views that are different from many of us here, but he backs that up with knowledge and offers some useful insights. He’s not just trying to wind people up, or create division as genuine trolls do. For now things stay as they are.


      • I don’t know what made you think im a troll, but its very rude to be accusing people out of thin air. Now i realize i was wrong call out on tim, he was not using personal attacks or insulting anyone. I just saw him in a lot of places trying to convince people its real, but he wasn’t wrong doing it because he wasn’t using personal attacks or snide remarks unlike the pseudoskeptics. In fact i was using personal attacks on him. Tim i’d like to apologize, im a very impatient trigger happy person, got that “shoot anything that moves” personality.

        Thanks for the comment Ben, whenever I talk to people about NDEs in real life they just stare me and try to change convo. This place has been very useful to me. I don’t even need to research the latest updates because i know someone will deliver them to my doorstep 😀


      • Glad to be of service, although often the updates are supplied to me by other members. Thank you also for the humility to apologise to another valued member who felt wronged.


  20. Eduardo Jorge on said:

    In the investigation of the NDEs, I believe that there has been too much expectation in the Aware Study. After the end of the first stage in 2014 and seeing its poor results, with the aggravating fact that Parnia several researchers alerted him of how difficult it was to obtain positive results and discouraged him from using this type of methodology, the IANDS proposed a study model alternative… The Iands expressed at that time that it could take up to decades to achieve a single case of visualization of a hidden objective only visible from the ceiling (I-pad) to continue with a prospective study of cardiac arrests with a similar methodology .
    On the other hand, the researcher Pim Van Lommel is pessimistic about the results of seeing hidden targets only visible from the ceiling (I-pad) … For me it is very random such visualization, and it could only happen accidentally. Of course I can be wrong … Consequently we may have to settle for anecdotal evidence. For some this will be weak evidence, for others it will not be scientific (although in reality I don’t know why), and for others who know cases of highly trusted people who had similar experiences of observing extracorporeally it will be strong evidence.
    But, I repeat, I do not see a clear reason to think that a patient in an extracorporeal state directs his attention to a specific object to the detriment of so many others who may be in a hospital ward … More so if he is living other events that may be more important for him. That (that hidden targets are visible only visible from the ceiling) is something that we and the researchers want, but the patients certainly do not.


  21. Anton Efimov on said:

    Chad, you keep mentioning Al Sullivan as a strong case and from the impression I got, you know a lot about it.
    I conducted my own research, which was not deep, I must admit, but I found out that sceptics state that Al’s heart never stopped and the NDE he had was during general anaesthesia, when the doctor tried not to touch anything with his hands before the operation, i.e. flapping his hands. However, it is also said that his eyes were taped shut.
    I was wondering whether you know at what exact moment his eyes were taped shut. If they were taped shut in the middle of the operation after the introduction of general anaesthesia, it is not a very strong case, is it?

    I would be grateful if you could provide your response


    • Anton Efimov on said:

      And one more question about Al Sullivan. Al states that he saw 2 surgeons were “working on his leg” (creating a cardiac bypass in reality) while the doctor stood over his opened chest and pointed elbows. How does these events correlate with what actually happened? Because the doctor only admitted to flapping his arms to keep them sterile before operation, while in the NDE it states that his chest was already open. And yet again about the eyes being taped…


    • I dont know a lot about it, it’s not as reported as pam reynolds.

      I’m pretty eyes must be taped shut before operation even begins, imagine the patient seeing knives being pulled out. And where did the doctor admit to flapping his arm before the operation? Hiro Takata said he does the arm thing a lot but can’t remember when exactly he did it in Al’s case, this was from Greyson’s interview with him.

      I’m not sure if his hearted was stopped, but that’s not the important thing, since his eyes were taped. The skeptic argument is somehow Takata started waving his arm before anaesthetics was given and eyes were shut, I vaguely remember Greyson saying this possibility then giving a good counter argument from his interviews, don’t remember the exact details. And this is highly unlikely as beginning operation with the patient being conscious is extremely unprofessional.

      That video is from 2016, I posted it before.


    • @Chad

      Chad said > “I remember a comment from you on a book “myth of the afterlife” at, you know i have no sympathy for staunch materialists but that was too much.”

      Well your memory must be faulty because the comment I made on about The Myth of an Afterlife was not specifically about the book, because I’ve never read the book and I stated that at the time.

      My comment was about the Pam Reynolds case (of which Keith has commented) and it was a perfectly polite and reasonable comment aimed at Keith Augustine.

      If you continue to post incorrect comments about me on line, I will see what I can do to take some kind of action against you. I’ve had quite enough of your slander.


      • That was exactly my point, you never read the book but still left a negative comment. The comment section is meant for the book, not anything “aimed at the author”.


      • I dont understand how i’ve made multiple incorrect comments about you. I’ve seen you in quite a few places and formed an impression. And lets just suppose i am trying to misrepresent you, what kind of “action” were you planning to take against me?


  22. Anton Efimov on said:

    And check out this video by Parnia, I can’t seem to pinpoint how old it is


    • Great video that. It shows why he is so respected because he is very balanced in his approach. He only comments on what the science shows us, not on his own personal philosophy. It is important he continues to hold that line and doesn’t go off with the fairies like some of us on here (including me at times!) are prone to doing.


  23. Eduardo Jorge on said:

    From the analysis of various articles on the internet about the Aware II study and interviews with Sam Parnia I have rescued two points, namely:
    1) That the plan of Aware II is to measure, second by second, the levels of oxygen within the brain. There is also a portable EEG to measure whether the brain is working. In addition, patients are equipped with wireless headphones, through which words and random sounds (which must remain secret until the end of the study) are transmitted through a tablet. Images are also transmitted upward as people undergo CPR. See article by National post
    2) Using an auditory objective is important because NDErs (experimenters) would hear sounds in the room if they left their bodies, but they should not hear what is sent to them through headphones (something similar to what happened in the Pam Reynolds case).
    Based on the above, I ask what Sam Parnia means when he says in Live Science that the resuscitated patients “describe how they observed the doctors and nurses at work; they describe how they are aware of the full conversations, of the visual things that were happening and that otherwise they would not know,” he explained. According to Parnia, these memories were then verified by the medical and nursing staff who were present at the time and were stunned to learn that their patients, who were technically dead, could remember all those details.

    …they listened to the complete conversations…!!!! said Parnia….which were then verified…!!!!
    Consequently, hasn’t Aware II already proven that consciousness is independent of the brain?


  24. I am with Eduardo on this Orson. I sure hope you can find someone to go to The New York event.


  25. Werner Bartl on said:

    but if they had headphones and they still hear the conversation then that would suggest that the consciousness is independent


    • Susan Blackmore… if you knew the literature you’d know she is a pseudoskeptic. She even admitted to quitting parapsychology/nde research ages ago, surprised to see she’s still posting articles on it. I’ve had obes too just before waking up, they are nothing like obe during cardiac arrest. Everyone can hallucinate, doesn’t mean all obes must be hallucinations.


      • Paul Hawtin on said:

        TBH reading her latest narrative makes me think she may have lost the plot ! It just sounds silly – unless I’ve missed something ?


  26. I would say you are right Werner


  27. Werner Bartl on said:

    What is death, and is it reversible? Learn more about grantee @SamParniaMDPhD’s work in this blog post by trustee @DavidGMyers:


    • Thanks for the article Werner. He shows great both views, the skeptical one and the pro-believer one. It really depends on the data and not what a person believes in the end and I agree. I like his position and been doing the same here and he even shows how a good research in this area should be done if they want to convince the scientists and skeptics.


    • Thanks Werner, good find…here is the most important sentence though…

      “with a live stream link to come”

      This is for the meeting in November. No need to fly to NYC now!

      Methinks he may have read my email request for this (I probably wasn’t alone). Will create a post about this later.


    • He’s a professor of psychology, and he didn’t just say “ndes are hallucinations of a dying, nothing more, parnia is a pseudoscience woo promoter”. I’m surprised tbh. He mentioned 3 points that makes him think ndes are hallucinations, failure of parapsychology, link between brain/mind, and similar-to-nde experiences in dmt/other drugs. Has anyone seen a credible report of drug hallucination that’s very similar to a classic ndes? Many ndes like Eben Alexander sound more like a dmt trip, by classic nde i mean go down a tunnel, see being of light/relatives, have deep convos, see detailed life review with long forgotten information, then comeback totally changed from reflecting on their life’s actions, no la la land with butterflies etc. I’ve never actually read a drug hallucination like this, they share some elements similar to ndes but nowhere near as coherent/detailed as some notable ndes i’ve seen, they lack that “depth of plot” i often see in ndes.


      • Full of grammar errors and typos… I have trouble typing what im thinking, lol this probably supports mind/brain distinction because my hand is clearly doing its own thing.

        The link between brain and mind as seen in brain damage or drugs or even while dreaming really worries me, as I have said it before. Has Parnia ever commented on this issue?


  28. Werner Bartl on said:

    Yes of course


    • We have no clue about consciousness so if that is his argument…..
      I am adding psychology to economics as the new astrology…..Google economics as the new astrology ……

      Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: