AwareofAware

6 thoughts on “My Latest Non-Fiction Book Kindle Version is Free for 48 hours”

1. Book Worm on December 9, 2024 at 2:13 pm said:

   Been looking forward to this one ever since you teased it in your last NDE book – just bought it off amazon and it arrived two days ago (I’m having my wife give it to me for Christmas).

   I do have one question for you in the meantime: while I agree with your conclusion in your last book that we have many credible OBE NDEs, that have been independently verified, and many of them are just as “sound” as would be an NDE proved scientifically through the use of “targets” – I do still sometimes have doubts on why we haven’t been able to verify NDEs through targets. After reading pages 72-73 in After (Greyson’s book), it appears there have been seven studies using “targets” that did not have success. At first impression, seven studies seemed like a lot, and made me question whether my beliefs on NDEs were valid.

   Below are the six studies cited in the Greyson’s book (and I added the Aware II study). If we assume that, on average, 10% of cardiac arrest survivors have NDEs, and 25% of those people have OBE NDEs, and 10% of those people actually see any “target” placed in the room (i.e., they are in the right position of the room to see the target, actually notice the targets, etc.), we would have expected the following numbers:

   • Holden, Near-Death Veridicality Research in the Hospital Setting: Problems and Promise: only one survived cardiac arrest, but declined interview – so can basically throw this study out.
   • Lawrence, In a World of Their Own: I can’t find the numbers for this study.
   • Parnia, A Qualitative and Quantitative Study of the Incidence, Features and Aetiology of Near-Death Experiences in Cardiac Arrest Survivors: 63 survived cardiac arrest for interview, with four having NDEs, but no OBE NDEs.  Applying the above math, would have expected less than one person to have had an OBE NDE and seen the targets (0.16 of a person).
   • Sartori, Near-Death Experiences in Cardiac Arrest Survivors: 282 patients, with nine having NDEs and four having OBE NDEs, but none viewed the targets. Applying above math, would have expected less than one person to have had an OBE NDE and seen the targets (0.71 of a person).
   • Greyson, Failure to Elicit Near-Death Experience in Induced Cardiac Arrest: 52 induced cardiac arrests, but no NDEs. Applying above math, would have expected less than one person to have had an OBE NDE and seen the targets (0.13 of a person).
   • Parnia, Aware I Study (2014): 140 survived cardiac arrest for interview, with nine having NDEs (with two OBEs reported and one independently verified) – but the two OBE NDEs occurred in rooms without targets present. Applying above math, would have expected less than one person to have had an OBE NDE and seen the targets (0.4 of a person). Can basically throw this study out, because the OBE NDEs that did occur, were in rooms without targets.
   • Parnia, Aware II Study (2023): 28 survived cardiac arrest for interviews, six had NDEs, but no OBEs reported.  Applying above math, would have expected basically no person to have had an OBE NDE and seen the targets (0.07 of a person).

   In totality (throwing out Holden’s study and the Aware I study), 425 patients were involved in “target” studies. Applying above math, would have expected one person to have had an OBE NDE and seen the targets (1.06 person). If you increase the assumptions to 15% of people have NDEs, 25% have OBEs, and 15% would see “targets”, then you would get 2.4 persons. I’m guessing I shouldn’t look too much into this. For example, just because I have a 50% chance of getting heads when flipping a coin, doesn’t mean I’ll actually get heads by just flipping the coin twice — might need more coin flips to let the probabilities play out. Just wanted to confirm and see if you had any additional thoughts. Do you ever have any doubts like this or any other concerns from time to time based on the research? Or do you feel pretty rock solid?

   LikeLiked by 1 person

   Reply ↓
   • Ben Williams on December 10, 2024 at 8:21 am said:

     Hi Book Worm,

     Thank you for an excellent comment, and one that is worthy of being a post all by itself…something I will consider – using your words and citing you. It is a great analysis, and a thought that has been niggling me a bit.

     I think a bit more digging needs to be done and the following questions specific to each of these studies asked:

     1. What type of targets were deployed?
     2. Did the NDEs occur in the room where the targets were present?
     3. Did any of the patients who reported an NDE who were present in the room with the target, also report a full visual OBE?

     If the answer to 3 is yes, then this poses some really tough questions, although those can be answered by discussing target location in the room and awareness of the subject. But I think your excellent comment raises another question, that may make the statistics we all use misleading:

     The literature states that 20-25% of patients describe having an Out Of Body experience…but what precisely is that? What do the patients mean when they say they felt like they were out of their bodies? Were they actually able to observe things in this world or was it just a sensation, or were they referring to a sensation of leaving their bodies and heading for another dimension.

     I suspect that when you really drill down into the precise numbers of subjects who have a CA, leave their bodies and stay in the location of their bodies while being able to observe themselves and see detail, it is lower than 25%, and possibly lower than 10% of NDEs…but I do not have that data, and I am not sure it is available.

     Again, great question, and ultimately as more of these studies are done, and the numbers grow, the case for the sceptics grows precisely because of what you say. On the other hand, the more studies that are done the higher the likelihood there will be a scientifically verified OBE as it is inevitable. Either hundreds if not thousands of doctors are lying or are dumb as bricks, or these OBEs are real. My money is on the latter.

     LikeLike

     Reply ↓
2. Book Worm on December 12, 2024 at 2:21 pm said:

   Thanks for the response and great points. So many more factors on these studies to consider, rather than just the raw numbers. In addition to your three points, I now remember you also mentioned in your NDE book that Parnia excludes hellish NDEs and also had an arbitrary five-minute patient inclusion criteria (which likely means NDE patients would be further along in the narrative arch, minimizing the likelihood of an OBE NDE), demonstrating how little decisions made by the study conductors can impact these numbers.

   And I didn’t consider the possibility of the 25% number being much lower when testing for a full visual OBE (of this world).

   I agree with your conclusion that these OBEs are real (it really hit home for me when you explained in your last book how there really is no difference between the process of verifying an OBE, without the use of targets, versus verifying an OBE through the use of targets, in a scientific study).

   I was just having a hard time reconciling these veridical OBE reports with the raw numbers of the studies, so I’m glad I asked the expert. Your response was exactly what I was looking for. Thank you!

   LikeLiked by 1 person

   Reply ↓
   • Ben Williams on December 12, 2024 at 3:08 pm said:

     Glad to be of help!

     LikeLike

     Reply ↓
3. Lutrek on January 10, 2025 at 10:44 pm said:

   I have another question: Where is memory stored in the brain? How does the brain do this and at the same time it constantly forgets everything, even though it is constantly storing this memory, because in a minute the brain will remember what it stores in itself,,😂. These materialistic absurdities are tiring. Why the hell would the brain produce complicated NDE with OBE dead people etc. while the EEG is flat? The disturbed brain then has access to all its memory?,🤣 Trying to explain OBE NDE and any perception in terms of a severely disturbed brain is absurd! People, connect your mouths to 800v voltage with a small current, you will see brightness for a fraction of a second. Will this explain complicated OBE or NDE perceptions?

   LikeLiked by 2 people

   Reply ↓
   • paulbounce on January 11, 2025 at 6:15 pm said:

     Zapping your mouth with 800 volts might let you see brightness for a fraction of a second. However, I’ll give that one a miss and take your word for it. Have a good weekend my friend. Paul

     LikeLiked by 1 person

     Reply ↓