AWARE IIIa results
Firstly, thanks to Peter for bringing this to my attention. It was published a couple of days ago:
I have called this study AWARE IIIa as it is latest in a sequence of studies involving Sam Parnia (don’t think there is a formal name for this study at the moment). The first author is Joshua Ross, a resident physician at NYU Langone, and Parnia is the last-named author. First and last names on a publication are always considered the principal players in the study.
I call it IIIa because it is a pilot study looking at the feasibility of a larger potential study looking into consciousness during deep hypothermic circulatory arrest (DHCA). We have been waiting for something from this for a while now, especially as I have noted previously that recruitment started summer 2020. This paper confirms that and reports on patients recruited from 7/20 to 1/22 from 10 hospitals. It was funded by NYU and the Templeton foundation.
The idea of a study like this has been bouncing around for a while now. One of the most famous NDEs ever, Pam Reynolds, occurred during DHCA. The patient’s heart is stopped slowly under controlled conditions by cooling the body to less than 20 °C, surgery is performed, usually within 1 hour, then the body slowly warmed and the heart restarted. It is now a relatively routine procedure for types of surgery where stopping blood flow is important.
Given that the heart stops – cardiac arrest or CA – this has often been regarded as a possible model for NDEs under controlled conditions with the massive advantage that patients survive (only about 10-20% of in-hospital CAs survive to discharge). Given that patients undergoing DHCA have actually reported NDEs (or REDs), exploring this further made a lot of sense, and I was previously very excited about such a study. However, despite some early positive data from the Montreal study led by Beauregard, a more recent study showed no NDEs in a cohort of DHCA patients (HCA study from 2021). This led to me being a bit skeptical about a DHCA study producing a hit. My thinking was that maybe the patient had to be conscious prior to CA, and for the experience to be sudden for the consciousness to be “jolted out of the brain” or to allow disinhibition to occur, as Parnia would say.
Anyway, on to the study:
Design: feasibility study using similar equipment to that deployed in AWARE II – namely an ipad with images only visible from above and earbuds repeating words, as well as EEG and oximetry equipment. All of this would obviously be in place prior to CA, a huge advantage to AWARE II, as would patient consent be.
Results: Remember this is only a pilot to establish methodology, so the numbers were small:
- 35 post procedure interviews
- No explicit recall of images or words (3 fruits) – i.e. no one remembered seeing the images or hearing the words during the procedure
- 1 NDE/RED experience, but without an OBE
- 2 patients had recollections more consistent with CPRIC or ICU delirium
- 3 patients (8.6%) were able to guess the fruits correctly – the authors suggests this may imply implicit recall (i.e. they heard it, subconsciously recorded hearing it, but don’t remember hearing), I think this is a big stretch, something they acknowledge as well, as I will explain below
- Cerebral activity showed 70% of patient brains were isoelectric (no activity) during DHCA with about 30% having delta waves
My initial response to this was disappointment as once again we have a study without a hit, but on reflecting overnight on it, I am not so discouraged. Why is that?
Once again the numbers were small. Only 35 were interviewed. Now if these were CAs that occurred in an ICU or ER and were sudden as with most NDEs, you would expect 3-6 NDE/RED reports, but there is only one. If my thinking outlined above is correct – namely that a sudden/unexpected cessation of heartbeat while conscious is normally required for the consciousness to “untether” then you would either expect no NDEs from a DHCA study, or a much lower incidence. That may be why we only see one RED (although that is one more than was seen in the 2021 study).
Given that that there was only one reported RED (i.e. an experience meeting the stricter criteria outlined in the 2022 consensus statement – something I am leaning to much more given some of the physicalist’s adoption of the term NDE to describe all kinds of non-classical NDE events) and that normally only 20-25% of people who have a RED report an OBE (in this dimension at least), then you would not expect an OBE, especially one that noticed the screen.
As for guessing the fruits – banana, apple, pear – I suspect that if you asked 100 people to randomly name the first 3 fruits that came into their heads maybe 5-10% would come up with this combination. If it had been Apple, Banana orange it would probably be 30%. Anyway, the authors acknowledge that not too much should be made of this finding as chance may play a part. (they need to change the words and images for future studies as people familiar with these studies may taint the results)
Sceptics may argue that I am clutching at straws by remaining positive here, and they may be right, but if this had been a study with 10 times the number of patients, and there had been no NDEs with OBEs, then I might agree. As it is, I think my position is rational, if on the optimistic side.
In conclusion (from our perspective), while there was no OBE with explicit recall of images, given the 1 RED, this DHCA pilot study hints at the possibility of using DHCAs as a better method for exploring consciousness during CA, and specifically REDs. However, accounting for the possibility of a lower prevalence of REDs from this procedure than that seen in the unplanned CA population, much larger numbers may be needed. Hopefully they carried on with collecting data after January 2022 and we won’t have to wait another 5 years! Moreover, I hope they are continuing collecting data for AWARE II since it is still possible DHCAs may prove a dead end.
Parnia continues to lead the way in research into consciousness during CA. He is genuinely an outstanding researcher in this field and I hope that one day his labor and perseverance will be rewarded. All power to Parnia!
Finally, if you haven’t already, please visit this site which has my books on NDEs etc and feel free to buy one! If you read a book, liked it but not yet reviewed/rated it, then please do so. Finally I am in process of creating audiobook versions of some of the books which will be available later in June.
AwareofAware 
This study wasn’t a game-changer, that’s for sure. It suggests we need larger studies and that certain types of NDEs (like sudden ones) may be more likely to produce NDEs than controlled ones like DHCA.
Rgds Paul
LikeLiked by 1 person
I wrote: >>>certain types of NDEs (like sudden ones) may be more likely to produce NDEs than controlled ones like DHCA<<<
I wonder why???
LikeLike
I think we might be grasping at straws at this point. We’re making too many excuses; if a larger study were carried out, and there were no OBE hits, people on this side of the fence would say, “But X, Y, and Z wasn’t done properly! We shoud try again.”
That said, I want to hold out some hope too. After all, in his interviews, Dr. Parnia sounds very convincing.
LikeLiked by 2 people
if there is a afterlife and a higher power iam sure it would always stop us from knowing too much since it would break the game
LikeLiked by 1 person
It would remove free will, yes.
LikeLike
“Game”?
LikeLike
I too have been pondering this point somewhat. Often times the believers will say that the NDErs weren’t looking in the right direction or weren’t in the correct vantage point. They’ll say that if you experienced an NDE then you would not care enough to notice a sign or tablet with some symbol. They’ll often times cite the experiment with the gorilla and players passing balls around as an example of how selective our attention can be. I agree to an extent but that raises an interesting question which is at what point do we have enough misses where we can say confidently that NDEs are just a fabrication of the mind and don’t reveal any alternate reality beyond the body? The tests provide a somewhat asymmetric way of testing the theory of alternate consciousness. Positive results can be proven quite convincingly in a pretty straightforward manner but negative results don’t necessarily provide as much information which can be problematic.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi Pablo,
I agree with what you are saying but there is a very important point to make about the lack of hits in any of the AWARE studies:
TO DATE, NO PATIENT HAS REPORTED A CLASSICAL OBE IN A ROOM WITH TARGET OBJECTS.
This is most likely a function of small numbers recruited so far.
AWARE I still has the largest number of interviewees (about 100 if I remember) with about 10 NDEs, and 2 OBEs, with one being a full blown classical OBE…but neither of the OBEs were in rooms with cards.
AWARE II interviewed 28 people (again think that is the number, haven’t got the data in front of me). There were no classical OBEs.
“AWARE IIIa” had one RED, and no OBEs.
If we had a number of claims of classical OBEs in AWARE II or AWARE IIIa, and no target verification, then this sort of thinking…when do we draw a line under this…would come into play. Not yet though…not by a long way.
LikeLike
I agree, albeit we must try and remember that this was only a pilot study.
LikeLike
Hi Ben,
Yes, I’m in agreement.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The recalled information from the NDE OBE seems to be anomalous, but it appears to come from the Experience of third parties.
It’s for that reason that we’ll never get hit’s on hidden, secret, real-time visual targets, because the third parties don’t have any Experience of the visual targets… because they are secret and hidden.
LikeLike
So you are discounting all the reports of OBEs with objects that “3rd parties” could not see then?
LikeLike
“So you are discounting all the reports of OBEs with objects that “3rd parties” could not see then?”
Were these recalled “objects” hidden and secret, like the visual targets used by Parnia and Sartori ? No, they weren’t.
Nobody, literally nobody, recalls hidden, secret, real-time information – targets or otherwise.
When we do get reports of information that is hidden like: a lipstick hidden inside a pocket; undisclosed anger about being left without support the first time on the job; thinking about going on holiday next week; such information is always from the unspoken Experience of third parties. Recalled knowledge of such undisclosed information is literally pointing at where the recalled information originated – the third parties.
LikeLike
The quarter on top of the cupboard? The serial number on a respirator? And a number of others like this.
LikeLike
“The quarter on top of the cupboard? The serial number on a respirator? And a number of others like this.“
I don’t know why are you persisting in suggesting these are equivalent to the hidden and secret visual targets used in Parnia and Sartori’s studies?
That’s why hidden, secret, real-time visual targets will never be recalled.
The only hidden (not secret) information which is recalled by experients, is stuff that is literally within Experience – we have lots of third parties actual thoughts being recalled (Experience). Nobody has ever reported recalling hidden and secret information. It doesn’t happen, it’s never happened.
LikeLike
Sorry Max, I completely disagree. They were hidden, and until the OBE observers saw them, they were “secret”. You are basically saying that these people were liars to suggest otherwise.
LikeLike
“Sorry Max, I completely disagree. They were hidden, and until the OBE observers saw them, they were “secret”. You are basically saying that these people were liars to suggest otherwise.“
Suggesting that serial numbers printed on hospital equipment; and lucky quarters placed upon hospital furniture, are equivalent to the hidden and secret visual target methodology used within Parnia and Sartori’s studies is simply incorrect.
That is why hidden and secret visual targets, like those used within Parnia and Sartori’s studies will never be recalled.
I won’t even respond to the inaccurate and emotive accusation leveled at me in your last sentence.
LikeLike
So you are saying that because someone put that quarter on the cabinet, and someone fitted the theatre lights and glimpsed the serial numbers, or even made a note of them on an invoice, the memory is stored by someone and therefore shareable in an NDE when the consciousness is in a different state?
LikeLike
“So you are saying that because someone put that quarter on the cabinet, and someone fitted the theatre lights and glimpsed the serial numbers, or even made a note of them on an invoice, the memory is stored by someone and therefore shareable in an NDE when the consciousness is in a different state?”
It’s you who is suggesting (above) that serial numbers printed on hospital equipment; and lucky quarters placed upon hospital furniture, are equivalent to the hidden and secret visual target methodology used within Parnia and Sartori’s studies.
You’re wrong. They are not equivalent.
I’m claiming what I’ve always claimed for the last x years… Hidden and secret visual targets, like those used within Parnia and Sartori’s studies will never be recalled, because the visual target information is hidden and secret, and is therefore not within Experience, so cannot ever be anomalously recalled by Experients.
Parnia and Sartori’s target methodology is analogous to parapsychology researchers designing a telepathy test (Ganzfeld-type etc)… where neither the broadcaster nor the receiver know what the visual target is… what does one think is going to happen..? Absolutely nothing.
We have the evidence from NDE OBE experients, who recalled the live and undisclosed thoughts (Experience) of people around them (i.e. a lipstick hidden inside a pocket; undisclosed anger about being left without support the first time on the job; thinking about going on holiday next week). So we already have a very good signpost pointing towards where the anomalously recalled veridical OBE information is originating.
LikeLike
OK, so let’s get into this.
In my response I suggested, from what you had said previously, that you believe the reason people recalled the serial numbers and quarter etc was because other people had either placed them there, or fitted the lights and therefore had seen them in “real life” and therefore were not fully hidden or secret,and that somehow the OBE experiencers had accessed these memories, and others, such as the surgical procedures etc, through some mechanism that implies that all memory of all experience is stored and accessible by the consciousness under certain conditions.
Do you agree that is what you are believe to be the case in these OBEs, just so I fully understand your position? If not then please explain what you believe to be the case with these OBEs.
LikeLike
Nope, I’m not suggesting the third parties I mentioned earlier are those who first installed the hospital theaters surgical lights, nor necessarily the person who originally put a lucky quarter in place (although that is certainly possible).
The serial and model numbers of surgical lights are often on the top, or side, of light heads or supporting arms. Surgical Tech or Surgical nurses are often involved in the cleaning of theaters and particularly theatre equipment. These same persons are also present during surgery. Theaters are cleaned regularly, at the start and end of day and in between patients. Light heads are cleaned regularly, and pulled down, or inverted to clean the top. Sterile handles are removed and replaced. Serial and model numbers of different lighting equipment is not in any way secret, and often it is not even hidden from the surgical team during surgery, depending on light head or supporting arm positioning, and particular team members location in the theatre. It’s perfectly possible for such targets to be in the awareness of theatre staff.
Use of lucky quarters or coins are quite commonly used by people who believe they bring luck. They may be hidden from the patient, but they are not hidden from cleaning staff, or other persons who know of their location, or whomever put the coins in place. Cleaning procedures in hospitals are regular and rigorous. Coins on top of cupboards cannot be considered secret, or even hidden to some hospital staff. I expect persons who believe in the effect of such a lucky coin, would bring the coin into their awareness when they are ‘wishing for help or luck’, perhaps for a patient to get better, or pull through, and particularly in moments of crisis.
LikeLike
I wonder if the reason the numbers of NDE recall is so low from this group of 30 have+ is because the stats we usually go with (15-20%) is based on both CAs from those resuscitated with medications (that may blunt memory) AND those resuscitated without medication (perhaps CPR only). Meaning, if you were to separate these two groups you might see higher recall numbers from those who were not given anesthesia or other drugs. This would bias the statistics.
LikeLiked by 1 person
That is a really interesting hypothesis, and may be true. My only issue with all these memory arguments is that if the person having an NDE had no brain activity when the event took place then the memory was never created in the brain, and physiological parameters such as drugs used or age related memory loss should not affect memory recall. If the event happened outside of the body, and “memory” of this event was therefore also created outside of the brain, accessing that memory afterwards should possible despite any physiological parameters.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, I thought this too regarding the fact that most people don’t have any recall at all of an NDE. The only thing I can think is that memory requires a chain of recall (for lack of a better term 🙂 ). For example, if I think of something – say my first grade teacher, that will provide access to other memories of her and my first grade class. In the case of blunted memories due to drugs, this chain of memories is broken. Memories of the NDE exist but they are not accessible because we have no chain of recall to reach it. If this makes any sense.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Really interesting thinking. The memory is there, but the route to accessing is not there. Possible.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I noticed this in dreams. That is I can easily recall the details of a dream if I wake up while I am still dreaming.
LikeLike
I think this thread is super interesting and sparking some great thinking. I agree, I tend to only remember the last dream I had, so do people only have recall of NDEs if they had consciousness immediately proximate to it? Also, unless a dream is really intense or unusual, I will usually forget the contents of a dream within hours. Maybe the brain files it in a “junk” folder, as in not relevant to life. Does it do the same with NDEs with some people?
LikeLike
Interestingly I think a lot of people claim to be more knowledgeable when they’re experiencing an NDE but claim to forget a lot of the knowledge when they return.
LikeLike
Hello Pablo. I don’t understand the logic of that one? I can appreciate peeps not telling others about their NDE. They may not even tell their friends or family, fearing they will be laughed at or not believed. However, I can’t understand why they would tell others about their NDE but stay guarded about revealing all the details.
Have a great Frisatsu ~ Rgds Paul “>
LikeLiked by 1 person
I do think it makes sense, however I have come across NDE accounts in which an NDEr recalls an experience after being in a coma. Hence at least in those case there’s some time that has passed. As you mention, strength (emotional) also makes it more likely to remember. Proximity and/or intensity. Remember not all NDEs are powerful experiences (at they are shorter in duration). For example, the void or even out of body’s lack the intense emotional states described by those with deeper experiences. So perhaps they are less likely to be remembered unless there is proximity.
For me if I am having a dream, to actively recall it later (after just waking up) I have to consciously think about it in my head. To reflect on the contents of the dream. “What happened in my dream? What did he or she say, what did I feel? etc.” Perhaps this is the mechanism in which the “links” are made between the memories in the altered state of consciousness (dreaming), and with or normal everyday consciousness.
The other possibility is that by reflecting on the dream, I am encoding a “copy” ie. a local representation of the dream in my brain.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I hope you’re right! We’d live in an amazing universe if REDs are true.
LikeLiked by 1 person
There are numerous issues with studies like this. One being the fact the closer you are to death the more likely you are to have a RED as Dr. Penny Sartori study years ago pointed out. So if we are to try to capture an RED where someone can recall seeing images about them on a screen while above their bodies the chances of that unfortunately are not good. There are at least a few cases where patients have seen serial numbers before. They were not actual studies, but accounts which are backed up well. If these cases did not exist, physicalists would have a point and the prospect of the mind being something produced by the brain would go up. 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 .
https://atheism-demolished.blogspot.com/2016/01/refuting-nde-debunkers.html
https://www.npr.org/books/titles/263101025/the-death-class-a-true-story-about-life#excerpt
The second case is from an anesthesiologist Christopher Yerington.
https://www.quora.com/As-an-anesthesiologist-what-has-been-your-strangest-experience-while-trying-to-put-someone-under/answer/Christopher-Yerington.
There are of course other cases like the shoe on the ledge described in great detail.
A case reported by the surgeon Dr. Lloyd William Rudy. Here the patient has a cardiac arrest and sees post-Its on a computer in another room and can correctly recall the conversation of the 2 surgeons.
and much more.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think what Leo is describing is pretty much the biggest fault of the NDE/RED research in general. These conductive studies that are considered to be the mainstream ones have little to no hits without any results but the instances outside of Sam’s research detail conclusive hits that when I read up on they baffle me to this day. What we need is more of this and less of the disappointing ones. I don’t hate Sam but I’m being constantly disappointed with his research. Granted this is just a prototype though given how poor Aware 2 was I don’t have much hopes for Aware 3.
LikeLiked by 1 person
No. Dr P hasn’t come up with the Ace of Spades just yet. However, he does ‘keep bu@@ering on’, so he must feel there’s something ‘out there’. Additionally, his research has demonstrated that the long-held notion that when the heart stops beating, the brain stops functioning completely, is incorrect. This has moral implications for organ transplants, which in turn should keep the Wheels of Industry turning ~ ie his funding.
And who knows ~ he might still play his Ace of Spades as he chugs along ward to ward with his ipads!
Rgds Paul
LikeLiked by 1 person
I applaud the efforts of Dr Parnia. The research is difficult. I believe DHCA has produced hits in the past. I think Pam Reynolds was one such case and I think Mario Beauregard reported another such case. Other scenarios may yield higher OBE instances but it’s possible that they may be more difficult to collect. We typically can’t willingly induce a cardiac arrest or other life threatening scenarios to patients for ethical reasons. In the case of DHCA we know that we have had cases of OBEs and we have pretty good control over when a DHCA is performed so the tablets can be brought in at the start of the procedure. I think it’s difficult to say if this is the correct approach. I don’t see many people doing research in this area. It may in retrospect turn out to be completely wrong but again this isn’t a popular area of research so Dr Parnia is reduced to feeling around in the dark. There has been an interesting OBE reported by Sam Parnia as detailed in one of his books. The patient was able to describe events that took place during the operation which he would seem to be unable to do from his vantage point even if he was conscious. I believe the target was absent, unfortunately. But we can’t will the results into existence. The best Dr Parnia can do is set up a robust experimental procedure that will seek to determine if OBErs are experiencing any sort of alternate state of consciousness. The cases that Leo provided are drawn from a much wider pool of cases than Dr Parnia is going to be able to draw from. It shouldn’t be a surprise that the number of cases that Dr Parnia reports is going to be far smaller. But the cases that Leo reported have been reported retrospectively outside of controlled conditions. With this study Dr Parnia would be legitimizing and opening up this field of study to scientific inquiry and adding much needed scientific rigor that has until now largely been lacking in my opinion. The best he can do at this point is to try to collect as many cases as possible. If no hits are reported then either more data needs to be taken, there is something inherently wrong with the process that prevents sufficient hits to be generated, or perhaps there just aren’t any alternate states of consciousness. Perhaps the detractors are right and it is all just in the head. The cases reported by Leo haven’t been reported under controlled conditions. They’re documented to the best ability of the observer. They may be doctors in some cases but everyone is human and is capable of making mistakes. The observers in these retrospective cases likely were not aware that the patient may report an OBE and what they might report back. As such they were likely not paying attention if there wasn’t some other way that the patient could have gleaned the information from more conventional sources. For instances in one of the examples Leo pointed out, Dr Yerrington who was interviewed regarding an OBE (the interview is on YouTube) has explained that it’s possible that there was a point during the procedure when the patient may have been able to easily see the serial number he claimed to have seen during his OBE. Dr Yerrington has stated he doesn’t believe this to be the case but Dr Yerrington said there was a lot going on during the surgery. It seems reasonable that a witness might not pay enough attention to when an opportunity where the patient might be able to gain access to information through conventional means might present itself. In short I’m glad Dr Parnia is doing this work.
LikeLike
>>>We typically can’t willingly induce a cardiac arrest or other life threatening scenarios to patients for ethical reasons<<
CC ~ Doctor Parna, if you read this blog, there’s an idea for you (+.+)
LikeLike
hi Paul bounce,
Am I wrong? Could you explain?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi Pablo. 3rd time lucky. If it doesn’t work this time, I give up! >>>We typically can’t willingly induce a cardiac arrest or other life threatening scenarios to patients for ethical reasons<<
CC Doctor Parnia, if you read this blog…
LikeLike
Looking forward to more research from Dr. Parnia
LikeLike
Has anyone here read Raymond Moodys 2023 book “Proof of Life after Life”?
LikeLike
No. Probably worth it though, although I am not sure if there would be anything new.
LikeLike
PS ~ Off topic, I know. Frisatsu is the weekend (Friday/Saturday/Sunday). If it’s a bank holiday weekend, you say have a great Frisatsumo. The list is endless if Christmas falls at the weekend. Same with Easter. Anyway, I feel I’m a little ‘off topic’ here, so I’ll gett my coat and buzz off. Rgds Paul
LikeLiked by 1 person
Check out Dr. Parnia book Lucid Dying. Its a good read
LikeLike
The explanation is relatively simple:
In order to be able to recall a memory as a living being, certain neuronal traces of the event must be present in the brain.
If the cortical structures fail completely, no memory trace can be created, meaning that later retrieval is not possible.
In some cases of cardiac arrest with cardiac massage, there appears to be sufficient cortical activity so that the event can be remembered.
This can also be shown with the drug midazolam. After the effect has worn off, the patient can no longer remember anything, as the memory traces are missing.
This does not mean that the memory is located in the brain, but merely that a living person needs certain neuronal traces to retrieve the memory. This is also the case with simple movements.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks for that Peter. I think this a really important consideration in all this. Most NDEs resulting from CA will not have drugs that interfere with memory, but all DHCAs will.
LikeLike
I came across an interesting NDE. Someone returned to life and the doctors told her she went into a rage and begged to send her back. But she doesn’t recall any of it. She was depressed and homesick but has no memories of what led to those feelings.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Very interesting case and highlights the unpredictable nature of recall of NDEs.
LikeLike
Check out the book Immortal Minds by Michael Egnor. It comes out June 3rd
LikeLike
I finished reading “Near Death in the ICU” by Laurin Bellg, MD. I liked the book overall, though I think there was a lot of overlap between this book and a lot of other content that I read before this. I suspect some of these OBEs may not be new to a lot of people here. Also I have a physical copy so I will not take out entire excerpts of the most significant parts as I had previously. Here are the notes that I thought were most interesting.
pp 3-4 describe a physicians OBE/NDE. The doctor ended up not disclosing his experience for much of his life for fear of the damage that this sort of experience could bring to his career.
pp 39-41 A case was reported where a patient described floating to the floor above where he saw mannequins around the peripheral of the room with a computer station in the center. This was later verified to be true. The patient also described some aspects of the surgery including how the doctor had to avoid some wires and tubing during the procedure.
pp 112-113 A case was reported where a patient was able to recollect a specific conversation his family was having in the waiting room, far removed the patient. The family were discussing a strange tree and were contemplating taking a leaf home to identify it. The patient recollected one of the children knocking over a wall of blocks with a toy tractor that he had received when the patient receiving care. These events were later confirmed to have happened.
p 115 The author claims there were two cases of patients experiencing OBEs after being injected with a liquid that allows medical personnel to scan the heart for blockages. They claimed to have made observations that would have been impossible to make from their bodies’ vantage points and these observations were later confirmed to be true but the author does not say what those were.
pp 165-166 In a suspected OBE case a patient was able to describe a work station in great detail that was outside of his surrounding area. Some of the details he was able to recall was an ice machine, blanket warmer, and a supply chart.
pp 177-179 A car crash victim was able to describe the circumstances of the car crash she was involved in. This included the details of some of the cars involved like the color and the sign on the truck that was involved in the crash. She also knew which driver called the authorities to report the crash.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Pill of the week (although it’s only 5.15 am on Monday). How can materialists explain these cases?
They can’t.
Rgds Paul
LikeLiked by 1 person
This is not directly aimed at addressing NDEs, but worthy of a read in any event ~ interesting mind-blowing content. Now I say it’s not really related to NDEs, or is it? Maybe, just maybe, the answers will be discovered through such thinking, rather than trying to get a ‘hit’.***
Rgds Paul
***Don’t tell Sam I said that!
https://bigthink.com/thinking/5-scientists-on-finding-meaning-in-the-universes-13-8-billion-year-story/
LikeLike
My last post didn’t include all the content. Lets try again >>>We typically can’t willingly induce a cardiac arrest or other life threatening scenarios to patients for ethical reasons<<
CC Doctor Parnia, if you read this blog…
LikeLike
I’ll try later! Its a great idea…
LikeLike
Check out the book Immortal Minds by Michael Egnor. Its a good read
LikeLike
does he discuss OBEs?
LikeLike
Yes he talks about NDES. Its a good read
LikeLike
4th time lucky, I hope, so lets try for the final time >>>We typically can’t willingly induce a cardiac arrest or other life threatening scenarios to patients for ethical reasons<<<
Yes we can! I have atrial fibribulation which simple means my heart beats irregularly. There is a procedure called a cardioversion, which resets the heart to sinus (normal rhythm). Doctors stop your heart from beating, and then get it pumping again by ‘jotting’ it with 20.000 volts. They can repeat this up to three times, so effectivley your heart has been stopped three times.
Stoke hospital do 12 people every month, and hospitals all over the world do CVs. Arranged in the right way, it would be possible to get 1000s of results in a few weeks. Most peeps having a CV would agree to an ipad being present, I think. Please note, the heart only stops beating for a few seconds. I don’t know if this would be enough time to produce a full NDE.
No more excuses about the ipad not being in the same room.
Ben?
CC Doctor Parnia, if you read this blog!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yeah, the few seconds thing would be an issue I think. How many NDE accounts have come out of these procedures? They are probably conducted under anaesthesia, so the same sort of issues as AWARE IIIa…correct me I am wrong. Also, you are expecting it, so maybe that plays into it. Still, an excellent thought.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hello ‘Ben’. You are correct BUT:
In an essay by Madelaine Lawrence (Hartford Hospital), the author proposed placing hidden LED displays in the electrophysiology cardioversion suite. She speculated that electrical cardioversion, which briefly disrupts heart rhythm and consciousness, might trigger NDEs—perhaps even enabling out‑of‑body visual veridical perception under controlled conditions
Some NDEs have been reported during cardioversion. Not many, but some.
It’s worth exploring further IMO, and easy to set up. As I stated in my last post, arranged in the right way, 1000s ‘N’ 1000s of ipads could be placed in the room where the cardioversion takes place. The Holy Grail of a ‘hit’ might result from this.
Happy Frisatsu.
Paul”>
LikeLike
my mother had a-fib. Was resolved with radio frequency ablation. Very high success rate with this procedure.
LikeLike
Thank you for the clarification.
LikeLiked by 1 person
My pleasure Pablo. Have a great Frisatsu. Paul”>
LikeLike
We’re back at it again I guess. It is interesting that we did have a RED even in this tiny sample study, to me that definitely adds to the legitimacy of the random reports that have been published in the past.
A lot of good points are being made in this comments section. Something that stands out to me is the discussion around NDEs occuring for people in situations closer to death. I don’t like sounding overly cope-y, but it certainly does feel like sometimes we get too focused on one area like NDEs and forget the wider picture of the type of experiences that occur. Near death visions and dreams, visits from the deceased or spirits and many other things that are very widely documented happening to people who are in a terminal condition and are not only coherent, but incredibly lucid. These experiences also happen to a far greater pecentage of people than NDEs do, reaching the 90% mark in some studies. What does that mean, how does it all play together? All very interesting stuff.
At the very least I am excited for Parnia to continue this type of research. The strides he has made towards furthering research into incredibly important areas that nobody has ever cared to do anything for is commendable and he deserves all the praise he gets. We never know how his research into these phenomena might affect treatment and improve the quality of life for people in the future, let alone what information on the brain it might one day help reveal.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Good post. +1 ‘like’. Paul”>
LikeLiked by 1 person
Excellent comment.
LikeLike
Accordingly, the heart retains memory:
https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1FgzvWVXVK/
Thoughts?
LikeLike
No thoughts of my own but I think the book embodied ming by Thomas Verny discussed this somewhat. I think I summarized the book somewhere on this blog.
LikeLike
I don’t think there’s much doubt it does. Although it still remains a moot point, there is strong evidence that the heart retains memory. People who have a heart transplant, often take on certain personality traits of the donor. There was one case when a mothers son died, and his heart was transplanted to another young man. I recall reading about it, as it was quite a touching story. The mother and the guy met. The mother asked if she could put her ear to on the guys chest, so she could hear her dead sons heart beating one last time. From memory the guy displayed some new traits that the donor had. A like for certain foods ~ That type of thing. The mother and the heart receiver had never been in contact before, and it comes across as more than just coincidence to me.
Paul”>
LikeLike
so is this going to be his last study on RED?
LikeLike
No. There is a study happening in Belgium, but it is only 100 patients so is extremely unlikely to be a positive result. The group are more likely to try to use it to disprove NDEs. Parnia is still accumulating patients for AWARE II and AWARE III.
LikeLike
so is this going to be Dr. Parnia’s final study on REDs or will there be others?
LikeLiked by 1 person
This was a pilot study…a small scale version of a larger study, so he will still be collecting data. Also, I think AWARE II is still recruiting, but don’t quote me on that.
LikeLike
It’s important to highlight that implicit learning does not apply to the subject who correctly recalled the audio stimulus in the AWARE 2 study, because Charlotte Martial suggested otherwise.If you read the supplementary material of the AWARE 2 study,it becomes clear.
LikeLike
The the parina lab keep silence .Don’t know what would they do. Given up?or doing some big.
LikeLiked by 1 person
https://www.resuscitationjournal.com/article/S0300-9572(24)00098-4/fulltext
A respond last year to Martial
LikeLiked by 1 person
Never read that…when did that appear? implies that the fruit recall was indeed explicit rather than implicit, which was my previous understanding understanding.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think June 2024
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hello, blog administrator!
It’s me again, Lucas Arruda.
I would like to share with you and the blog’s dear readers an argument that I believe can shed a little more light on the NDE phenomenon.
In this case, criticism of the argument is welcome.
Have a great start to the week.
Structured argument: NDEs, descriptive accuracy, and criticism of materialism
Premise 1
People who have experienced cardiac arrest and reported Near-Death Experiences (NDEs) tend to describe CPR (cardiopulmonary resuscitation) procedures more accurately than those who have not had NDEs. (Based on the studies of Sabom and Sartori:
In an earlier retrospective study, Sabom12 interviewed individuals who reported seeing parts of their own CPR. The patients’ descriptions of their own resuscitations were compared with their medical records (to which the patients had no access). However, most of the descriptions (26 of 32 patients) contained only general visual impressions, without details, which could not be verified. Although these descriptions correspond to what is known about cardiovascular resuscitation procedures, the accuracy of these reports was not verifiable. In contrast, Sabom asked cardiac patients who had not reported a CPR to describe a cardiovascular resuscitation procedure and found that 80% of this group made errors in their descriptions. Despite these convincing findings, most of the cardiac patients in the control group had not been resuscitated, so a more effective control group would have been composed entirely of patients who had received CPR but had not experienced a CPR. This was done decades later by Sartori13, who found that patients who reported observing their bodies during CPR were able to accurately describe the procedure, while those who also received CPR but did not claim to have seen it were unable to do so.
https://www.scielo.br/j/rpc/a/X4qkcGZS4N8DwthdQBPhBHg/)
Premise 2
Both groups (with and without NDEs) have, in theory, similar access to prior knowledge about CPRs (via general culture, films, documentaries, etc.), and would be subject to the same probability of error or accuracy if their reports were based solely on assumptions or imaginative reconstructions.
Premise 3
Therefore, if the group with NDEs presents superior and consistent accuracy in their descriptions, it is unlikely that this occurs by chance, imagination, hallucination, or shared prior knowledge.
Premise 4
In the AWARE II study (Parnia et al., 2022), patients who had vivid NDEs, including those with anomalous elements (such as Out-of-Body Experience), were in a flat electroencephalogram (EEG) state, that is, without measurable electrical brain activity at the time of the event.
Premise 5
Patients in the same study who had active EEG during CPR did not report vivid or coherent NDEs, and their reports were generally inaccurate, delusional, or disorganized.
Premise 6
The absence of measurable brain activity, especially with flat EEG, would, according to materialist paradigms, imply the absence of consciousness or lucid cognition.
Conclusion
Therefore, the occurrence of lucid, coherent, and verifiable experiences in patients without measurable brain activity, coupled with their superior descriptive accuracy compared to patients who have not had NDEs, poses a significant challenge to strictly materialist explanations of consciousness. It suggests that, at least in certain borderline cases, consciousness can occur or manifest independently of measurable brain activity.
LikeLiked by 3 people
The link you posted makes for an interesting read. Ty for sharing. Simply click, Portuguese to English, when the Google ‘pop up’ appears, for the English translation.
Paul”>
LikeLiked by 2 people
I am the one who is truly grateful.In this case, I would like to encourage my dear readers to focus on premises 1, 2 and 3, especially on the studies by Sabom and Sartori, which statistically prove that most victims of cardio-respiratory arrest do not have prior knowledge of how CPR works.I believe that materialism will argue two things: it is not possible to say with 100% certainty whether the 2 victims of Out-of-Body Experiences in the AWARE II study had zero EEGs, and that in this case the 2 victims were “lucky” in describing their truthful accounts.I argue that, based on the studies by Sabom and Sartori (which prove the lack of prior knowledge about CPR) + the high rate of closed eyelids among cardiac arrest victims during CPR, the result of this logic would in fact be a high rate of errors in seen descriptions of CPR.In this case, how would people without CPR knowledge be able to accurately record an event that they cannot see because their eyelids are closed? Is this assuming that the EEG would still be present at the time of CPR?
LikeLike
Sorry if I made mistakes in English.In this case, I’m using Google Translate
LikeLiked by 1 person
No worries, Lucas. The problem is easy to fix. Enjoy your day”>
LikeLiked by 1 person
In support of the argument, I ran some calculations with the help of an AI to assess how unlikely it would be for Michael Sabom’s study results to have occurred purely by chance. (Unfortunately, I couldn’t find the exact data from Penny Sartori’s research; however, I clearly remember that the number of studied individuals was much larger—let’s suppose over 300 cases of people who experienced cardiopulmonary arrest. Among those 300 people, 10 had NDEs and OBEs. In this scenario, 290 people were inaccurate and only 10 were accurate—and precisely those were the ones who had OBEs. If we do the math, the result would far exceed the threshold of what could be attributed to chance—much more so than in Sabom’s study.)
Michael Sabom’s Study:
To determine the probability that the observed difference between the two groups (study group and control group) happened by chance, we can perform a hypothesis test for proportions. We’ll use a Z-test for two proportions or Fisher’s exact test, depending on the sample sizes.
Data:
Study group (NDE): 26 correct answers out of 32 people → Proportion of correct answers
Control group: 20 incorrect answers out of 25 people → Proportion of correct answers (since 25 – 20 = 5 correct)
Steps for the Z-test for two proportions:
: (no difference between groups)
: (there is a difference)
hat{p} = frac{text{total correct answers}}{text{total people}} = frac{26 + 5}{32 + 25} = frac{31}{57} approx 0.5439
SE = sqrt{hat{p}(1 – hat{p}) left( frac{1}{n_1} + frac{1}{n_2} right)} = sqrt{0.5439 times 0.4561 left( frac{1}{32} + frac{1}{25} right)} approx 0.133
Z = frac{p_1 – p_2}{SE} = frac{0.8125 – 0.2}{0.133} approx 4.60
A Z of 4.60 corresponds to an extremely small p-value () in a normal distribution.
Conclusion: The p-value is much smaller than 0.05, so we reject the null hypothesis. This means the observed difference between groups is statistically significant and unlikely to have occurred by chance.
Alternative: Fisher’s Exact Test If we prefer an exact test (especially for small samples), we can use Fisher’s exact test. The contingency table would be:Correct Incorrect Total
Study 26 6 32
Control 5 20 25
Total 31 26 57
Fisher’s test would also return a very small p-value, confirming that the difference is significant.
Final answer: The chances that this difference occurred by chance are extremely low (p < 0.0001). Therefore, there is strong statistical evidence that the performance between the groups is indeed different.
LikeLiked by 2 people
In conclusion to the argument, I would like to encourage, if any researcher readers of the blog are interested, that large-scale experiments be conducted to strengthen the studies of Dr. Sabom and Dr. Sartori.If doctors or healthcare professionals wish, they could interview people who have undergone CPR and observe whether these individuals can accurately describe how a CPR procedure works. This way, replications can be published, and a robust meta-analysis may confirm the studies of these two researchers.I am fully confident that the groups of people who do not fit into those who have had NDEs and OBEs will be inaccurate in their reports.One study I personally propose was described by a doctor from my country (named Dr. Edson Amâncio), though unfortunately, I have never found this study published. It involves placing people with no prior knowledge of CPR procedures in a CPR room for the first time (but, to be fair, with their eyes closed), then simulating a CPR being performed on them, and afterward removing them from the room and asking them to describe what they remember of the experience (to test the hypothesis that conscious brains can recreate seen CPR experiences).According to Dr. Edson Amâncio, most of these people are unable to describe even half of the experience they witnessed.If both proposals are tested and confirmed, there will be no ground left for any materialistic argumentation.The reference described by Dr. Edson Amâncio can be found in this video from a channel specialized in NDEs, called “Afinal, o que somos nós”:https://youtu.be/CFEf9OIEzgA?feature=sharedSubtitles in various foreign languages are available in the video, and the moment in which the reference to Dr. Amâncio’s study is mentioned is at 4:49.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I hope all blog readers have a good week in their respective countries.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi Lucas,
Sorry I didn’t fully pick this up before, but been pre-occupied with my second attempt to move to New Zealand.
I like data and premise around CPR description recollections. It certainly adds to the existing body of evidence regarding validated OBEs.
Your premise regarding the EEG data is unfortunately not relevant as the patients who reported NDEs in AWARE 2 had no EEG data whatsover (neither flatline or active). The only ones who were interviewed who had EEG data had no recollections, but we weren’t told whether the EEG was active or not.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi Ben, good morning here in Brazil.
I apologize for making such a big mistake. I personally believed the EEG data was correlated.
I truly appreciate it. Have a great week.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Don’t worry, the study findings are not very clearly presented, and it is easy to over interpret the results.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ben, I managed to find the exact numbers from Dr. Penny Sartori’s study, where the data can be found at this link:
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.neardeathexperience.us/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Rousseau_Journal_of_the_Society_for_Psychical_Research_75.1_902_47-49.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjZmJKagOeNAxWOB7kGHVcJMMwQFnoECFQQAQ&usg=AOvVaw0vJUIH7minLOi6KcpmG2md
In this case, rounding the numbers, 300 people were interviewed, of which 8 had OBEs (Out-of-Body Experiences).
Once again, with the help of an AI, I calculated how unlikely it was for this to have occurred by chance: Determining the Probability of the Difference Occurring by Chance
To assess whether the difference between the two groups (one where all failed and another where all succeeded) happened by chance, we can use a statistical test for comparing proportions, such as Fisher’s Exact Test, which is suitable for small sample sizes. Data:
Hypotheses:
Method:
Fisher’s Exact Test calculates the probability of obtaining a distribution as extreme as the one observed, assuming no difference between the groups.
The contingency table is: Correct Failed Total Group 1 0 292 292 Group 2 8 0 8 Total 8 292 300
The probability of observing this distribution (or a more extreme one) under the null hypothesis is given by Fisher’s test. Calculation:
The probability can be calculated using the hypergeometric distribution:
[
P = frac{binom{292}{0} binom{8}{8}}{binom{300}{8}} = frac{1 times 1}{binom{300}{8}} = frac{1}{binom{300}{8}}
]
The value of (binom{300}{8}) (combinations of 300 people taken 8 at a time) is extremely large, but the probability is astronomically small. Result:
The p-value (probability of this happening by chance) is extremely low, on the order of:
[
p approx frac{1}{binom{300}{8}} approx 1.45 times 10^{-15}
] Conclusion:
If you want an exact value, you can use tools like Python, R, or statistical calculators to apply Fisher’s Exact Test, but the result will show that the p-value is so small that we can reject the null hypothesis with very high confidence.
(Note: If we combine these probabilities with Michael Sabom’s study, the numbers would be astronomically beyond the threshold of mere chance.)
LikeLiked by 2 people
This is great stuff Lucas, thank you for doing this.
LikeLiked by 1 person
This also makes for an interesting read. Here;
https://mindmatters.ai/2025/06/two-neurosurgeons-on-life-death-eternity-and-what-truly-matters/
LikeLiked by 1 person
Summary of the Two Studies:
Michael Sabom:
1 in 10,000 chance against coincidence
Penny Sartori:
1 in 1 quadrillion chance against coincidence
10,000 × 1 quadrillion = 10 quintillion
Combined result of Michael Sabom’s and Penny Sartori’s studies:
1 in 10 quintillion chance against coincidence.
(Note: If the calculations or logical factors are incorrect, I humbly apologize in advance.)
Conclusion:It is astronomically unlikely that such occurrences are the result of chance.
(Note: In Penny Sartori’s study, the 8 people who had Out-of-Body Experiences (OBEs) were interviewed in the hospital. Skeptics might argue that in Michael Sabom’s study, NDE survivors could have researched how CPR works before reporting their experiences to Dr. Sabom, potentially misleading him. However, it is incredibly unlikely that this happened in Penny Sartori’s 8 cases, as the patients were presumably under constant monitoring by healthcare professionals, making it impossible for them to study, for example via the internet, how CPR procedures work.)
LikeLiked by 1 person
These references confirm that Penny Sartori’s initial studies and interviews took place in the hospital.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Really grateful for you bringing this to our attention…almost feel it is worthy of a section in my book as when combined with the veridical OBEs from the Self Does Not Die, it really is beyond proof now.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Erratum:
A thousand apologies to all the readers of the blog.
I made a ludicrous mistake in the statement regarding the calculations from Penny Sartori’s study.
In fact, it refers to odds of 1 in 690 trillion against chance.
In total, combining the studies of Sabom and Sartori, the calculations would be:
10,000 × 690 trillion = 6.9 quintillion
Once again, I sincerely apologize.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Don’t worry, Lusas ~ What’a a few quintillion between friends (= . =). On a serious note, they are still very high odds against chance. Paul”>
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thank you very much, Ben and Paul.I sincerely thank you. I truly believe that the research conducted by Dr. Sabom and Dr. Penny Sartori can greatly contribute to shedding light on what Near-Death Experiences really are.Wishing you and all the blog readers an excellent week.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Logical Argument on Anomalous Perception in Near-Death Experiences (NDEs) Based on the Studies of Sabom and SartoriPremise 1 (Empirical Difference Criterion):If two groups subjected to the same clinical conditions (e.g., CPR) exhibit statistically significant differences in the ability to describe complex medical procedures — where one group (with NDEs) accurately reports sensory-inaccessible details and the other group (without NDEs) consistently fails — then explanations based on conventional factors (chance, prior knowledge, or hospital memory) are untenable.Premise 2 (Evidence from Sabom – Retrospective Study):Patients with NDEs described CPR procedures with greater accuracy (including specific details such as the sequence of actions or instruments used).The control group (without NDEs), even though composed of patients familiar with medical contexts, committed 80% major errors (e.g., describing nonexistent procedures).The probability of chance was calculated at 1 in 10,000 (p < 0.0001).Premise 3 (Evidence from Sartori – Controlled Prospective Study):Sartori eliminated Sabom’s methodological biases by using a matched control group (patients who underwent CPR without NDEs).Only NDE patients who reported “observing the body from outside” described verifiable real events during CPR (e.g., sounds, team actions) with precision.The control group was unable to reproduce such descriptions, even when repeatedly questioned.The probability of chance was calculated at 1 in 690 trillion (p ≈ 1.45 × 10⁻¹⁵).Premise 4 (Probabilistic Synthesis):Combining the probabilities from Sabom and Sartori’s studies results in odds of 1 in 6.9 quintillion (6.9 × 10¹⁸) against the null hypothesis (chance). This exceeds by orders of magnitude the scientific standard for rejecting random hypotheses (typically p < 0.05).Premise 5 (Exclusion of Conventional Explanations):Alternative factors — such as hallucinations, cultural expectations, or implicit memory — fail to account for:(a) The intergroup disparity under identical clinical conditions;(b) The accuracy of technical details unknown to laypersons;(c) The replication of the phenomenon in independent studies.Conclusion (Inference to the Best Explanation):Therefore, the hypothesis that NDEs involve an anomalous component of conscious perception — independent of conventional brain function — is the most parsimonious explanation for the observed data. This warrants interdisciplinary investigation (neuroscience, physics, philosophy of mind) to elucidate the underlying mechanisms.Link to sources and references for the studies of Michael Sabom and Penny Sartori (in Portuguese):https://www.scielo.br/j/rpc/a/X4qkcGZS4N8DwthdQBPhBHg/
LikeLiked by 1 person
I would be careful using mindmatters as a source. They’re a division of the Discovery Institute, which is a creationist/anti-evolution think tank.
LikeLike
that was in response to paulbounce, by the way.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hello Ellie. Ty for pointing that out ~ I understand your concern, and I’ll make a note of this when considering sources. Paul”>
LikeLike
When it comes to the origin of life, as a Ph.D. scientist who worked with DNA and amino acids as a central part of his early research, and understands the processes around DNA translation as well as anybody, I can assure you that it is completely consistent with the scientific evidence to believe that life was the result of intelligent creation. In fact, when you understand the science fully, and the overwhelming evidence against the belief that life emerged through natural processes, then it is frankly bonkers to believe otherwise.
I am not a young earther, and I have an open mind about the extent to which evolution is responsible for adaptations within species, but when it comes to the origin of life, you either have to be ignorant, gullible or deluded to believe in a natural solution.
Read my book DNA: The Elephant In The Lab to get a detailed understanding of the issue.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Just one further thing to add Ellie >>They’re a division of the Discovery Institute, which is a creationist/anti-evolution think tank<<
They are entitled to thier point of view.
Just sayln’.
Paul”>,
LikeLiked by 2 people
Hello everyone!
(This will be my last comment on this subject, as I realize that it could get boring if posted repeatedly. I apologize in advance if this is getting boring.)
I was reviewing the calculations related to the studies by Michael Sabom and Penny Sartori and noticed that the calculations presented in Penny Sartori’s commentary may not reflect reality, as I demonstrated in the errata, which I believe might also be inaccurate.
For this reason, I decided to work only with binomial distributions for both studies, mainly because we don’t have detailed information on how the evaluations were conducted (for example, how it was determined whether a hit was profound).
Starting from the basic premise that there is a 50% chance of being right or wrong, I developed another argument below.
I’m open to criticism and suggestions to improve this analysis.
In the meantime, have a great week!
Statistical Analysis of Evidence from Near-Death Experiences (NDEs) and Out-of-Body Experiences (OBEs)
Introduction:
Scientific studies have investigated the validity of Near-Death Experiences (NDEs) and Out-of-Body Experiences (OBEs), focusing on the accuracy with which patients describe events that occurred while they were clinically unconscious.
Research by Michael B. Sabom (1982) and Penny Sartori (2008) applied statistical methods to assess whether these accounts could be attributed to chance.
1.1 Objective
To compare the accuracy of patients who reported NDEs with those who did not, testing whether the observed difference in correct descriptions could be explained by chance.
1.2 Data
Group Cases (n) Correct (x) Accuracy (p̂)
With NDE (A) 32 26 0.8125
Without NDE (B) 25 5 0.20
1.3 Hypotheses
H₀: p₁ = p₂ (no real difference; variation is due to chance)
H₁: p₁ ≠ p₂ (there is a significant difference)
1.4 Z-Test for Two Proportions
The combined proportion is:
hat p = frac{x_1 + x_2}{n_1 + n_2} = frac{26 + 5}{32 + 25} = frac{31}{57} approx 0.5439
Z = frac{hat p_1 – hat p_2}{sqrt{hat p (1 – hat p) left(frac{1}{n_1} + frac{1}{n_2}right)}}
Z = frac{0.8125 – 0.20}{sqrt{0.5439 times 0.4561 times left(frac{1}{32} + frac{1}{25}right)}} = frac{0.6125}{sqrt{0.5439 times 0.4561 times 0.07125}}
0.5439 times 0.4561 = 0.248, quad 0.248 times 0.07125 = 0.01767, quad sqrt{0.01767} = 0.1329
Z = frac{0.6125}{0.1329} approx 4.61
1.5 p-Value and Conclusion
A Z ≈ 4.61 corresponds to a p-value < 0.0001, indicating that the probability of the observed difference occurring by chance is less than 0.01%.
Therefore, we reject H₀, confirming that patients with NDEs demonstrate significantly higher accuracy.
2.1 Objective
To investigate whether patients who experienced OBEs exhibited greater accuracy in identifying external events than expected by chance.
2.2 Data
Group Cases (n) Correct (x) Accuracy (p̂)
With OBE 8 8 1.00
Without OBE (Control) 292 0 0.00
2.3 Hypotheses
H₀: p = 0.5 (accuracy is random, 50% chance)
H₁: p > 0.5
2.4 Binomial Test for 8 Successes in 8 Attempts
The probability of 8 correct identifications in 8 attempts is:
P(X=8) = binom{8}{8} times 0.5^8 = 1 times 0.0039 = 0.0039 (0.39%)
2.5 Conclusion
The probability of these results occurring by chance is negligible, leading to a strong rejection of H₀.
The results of both studies indicate that the accounts of patients with NDEs and OBEs exhibit significantly higher accuracy than expected by chance.
Sabom (1982) reveals an extremely statistically significant difference (p < 0.0001) between groups with and without NDEs.
Sartori (2008) demonstrates the near-impossible statistical probability of perfect accuracy in the OBE group (p ≈ 0.0039 for the OBE group alone, even lower when considering controls).
This evidence suggests that these experiences are not mere hallucinations or coincidences, supporting the existence of conscious perception even during critical clinical states.
Explanation of Statistical Logic (Coin Toss Analogy)
The basic statistical logic used in these tests is analogous to a coin toss, where the chance of guessing a specific outcome is 50% (p = 0.5).
In Sartori’s study, the null hypothesis (H₀) assumes that correctly identifying an external event is random, like flipping a coin and guessing heads or tails.
When a patient correctly identifies 8 out of 8 events, it is comparable to guessing 8 heads in a row, which has an extremely low probability of occurring by chance (0.39%).
In Sabom’s study, the comparison of accuracy proportions between groups extends this logic to verify whether the observed difference could be explained by mere luck.
Thus, these tests confirm that the accuracy of patients’ descriptions far exceeds what would be expected from a random process like a coin toss, strengthening the validity of the reported experiences.
Sabom, M. B. (1982). Recollections of Death: A Medical Investigation. New York: Harper & Row.
Available at: Internet Archive
Sartori, P. (2006). A Prospectively Studied Near-Death Experience with Corroborated Out-of-Body Perceptions and Unexplained Healing. University of North Texas.
Available at: UNT Digital Library PDF
Sartori, P. (2008). The Near-Death Experiences of Hospitalized Intensive Care Patients: A Five Year Clinical Study (Doctoral Thesis).
Available at: Internet Archive
LikeLiked by 2 people
Ah, I almost forgot:
The probability that, by chance, 8 people with EFCs get everything right (8 hits out of 8) and none of the 292 people without EFCs get anything right (0 hits out of 292) is:
P = 0.0039 × 0.5^{292} ≈ 7.57 × 10^{-91}.
This number is so small that, in practical terms, it rules out the possibility of chance with an extremely high degree of confidence.
LikeLiked by 1 person
That’s a:
0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000757% chance!
Paul (” . ‘)
LikeLiked by 1 person
But it could still happen right? 😉
LikeLiked by 2 people
There are so many zeros, it didn’t all fit in! Ends with 757 😉
LikeLiked by 1 person
For what I call pseudoskeptics (like Woerlee ), I wouldn’t be surprised if they claimed that even mathematics can be challenged 🫣😬
LikeLiked by 2 people
Maths is the ultimate truth, which is why so many philosophers were also mathematicians. Theoretical physicists who don’t understand the maths, are not really experts of their subject. In my field of the origin of life, it is an unavoidable fact that at some point in the emergence of life a functional protein (in fact numerous proteins) needed to spontaneously form. This is unavoidable. The chances of that happening are something like 1 in 10 to the power of 165. To put that into context it is estimated there are about 10 to the power 70 particles in the universe.
I hear the (idiot) skeptic say “But it could still happen right?”
LikeLiked by 2 people
I translated the argument and organized it into a document, which is available for download on the Smallpdf website, through the following link:
https://smallpdf.com/pt/file#s=35a4fdd5-f61e-47f9-b0aa-4c46e1d6e12c.
The text is now more structured and can be accessed by anyone interested. Feel free to share it with whomever you like. As always, I welcome any feedback or suggestions to improve the content.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well done Lucas, thank you so much for the effort of producing this. I am not expert on statistics, despite having done a number of courses over the years in my work (I tried to stay awake…).
I guess my only concern would be to echo Pablo’s comment about the rigour of study design and whether any opportunity for bias or corruption of data had been removed and also that these results have never been presented in a major peer reviewed journal.
I need to spend a bit of time looking at the original data myself (did you provide links in one of your comments previously), but if things check out, would you mind if I used your analaysis as a basis for one of my next posts? Also, I will probably add it to the two books I have written as it is most definitely a useful additional piece of evidence.
Shame on me for not bringing these to our attention myself much earlier, and well done to you for providing such a thorough analysis and summary.
LikeLiked by 1 person
that great work Lucca. The pdf great too
LikeLiked by 2 people
although regarding maths they could possibly invoke Gödel incompleteness theorems. Maybe
LikeLiked by 2 people
I’m weak in statistics so unfortunately can’t follow along too well. One thing I would caution though is about the idea of a non representative sample. I don’t know how Sartori conducted her studies but I believe Dr Sabom had many of his patients referred to him. Is it possible that the patients that were referred to him were more likely to have veridical experiences? I don’t know but it’s worth considering.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thank you very much for the comments and feedback, Ben, Z, and Pablo!
Regarding Ben’s comment, I would be truly honored if the paper were used! In fact, I believe it still needs some adjustments to properly confirm the statistical part. But honestly, I would be very honored if this preliminary paper were used!
Once again, thank you all! Have an excellent weekend!
LikeLike
Please disregard the last PDF sent. It contains a serious error regarding Sabom’s study, specifically about the number of participants. The summary incorrectly states that the study had only 32 patients in total. In reality, 32 people experienced NDEs (Near-Death Experiences), and 25 people in the control group did not have NDEs. This inaccuracy seriously compromised the arguments and calculations presented. I apologize for the mistake.
LikeLike
In this case, this is the PDF with the unforgivable correction of the logical argument:
https://smallpdf.com/file#s=9a857d62-9164-45f7-898c-116a8bf858f1
A thousand apologies for this grotesque mistake. Honestly, when I summarized it, I hadn’t noticed this horrible error.
(P.S.: Ben, I kindly ask you to please delete that last comment with the wrong PDF. Unfortunately, I don’t know how I can delete it myself.)
LikeLike
Done
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you very much, Ben.
LikeLike
‘Ben’ wrote:
I have an open mind about the extent to which evolution is responsible for adaptations within species, but when it comes to the origin of life, you either have to be ignorant, gullible or deluded to believe in a natural solution
I can work with this ~ Hell Yes…
Paul”>
LikeLiked by 1 person
Don’t be so pedantic Ben 😉
LikeLiked by 2 people
An interview of Dr segarra.
https://cnnportugal-iol-pt.translate.goog/manuel-sans-segarra/vida-depois-da-morte/e-medico-e-garante-que-tem-provas-objetivas-de-que-ha-vida-depois-da-morte-chegaremos-a-um-momento-em-que-seremos-todos-santos/20250608/6839fcf9d34e3f0bae9ed5f6?_x_tr_sl=pt-PT&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=wapp
LikeLike
I hear the (idiot) skeptic say “But it could still happen right? Loz
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hello everyone, and good evening here in Brazil.
I’ve tried my best to improve the entire structure of the analysis and argumentation presented in the paper. I also included possible skeptical arguments related to the work, as well as what I believe are well-structured counterarguments.
I do not deny that, in the mathematical section, I used AI as a tool, as well as for the raw version of the summary, but I believe this does not invalidate the argument.
My latest publication, the most updated version, can be found on the Smallpdf website at the link below:
https://smallpdf.com/file#s=9e5df8fd-cbb7-4b39-bf67-5e6c5f122388
Any and all criticism and observations of possible and inevitable flaws in this argument are, once again, very welcome, as I seriously believe this can strengthen the reasoning.
And, as always, I wish all readers a great weekend in their respective countries.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Note: I realized that I shared the original file in PDF format in the comment above, where I believe this format might make it a bit harder to download and view (I myself had to refresh it a few times to see all 3 pages).So, I have now converted it to a Word file at the following link, which makes downloading and viewing easier.It can still be found on the same site, Smallpdf:
https://smallpdf.com/file#s=58c2b9c3-27bb-4518-ae6e-c2f156f7b78d
Another note: the article states that 8 people had NDEs in Sartori’s study. That was a translation error that occurred during the initial rough draft with AI assistance. In fact, 15 people had Near-Death Experiences, and 8 of them had Out-of-Body Experiences. In total, 292 got it wrong and these 8 got it right, using a deliberately simplistic and conservative calculation.
Once again, feedback and suggestions to improve the argumentation are very welcome and necessary.
LikeLike
I am currently working on Update IV of the argument, this time correcting the previous translation error and, more importantly, providing a justification for why a 20% probability is a fair estimate—based on Dr. Sabom’s own study.
I believe that, from a mathematical standpoint, the entire argument is now well-structured. As for the skeptical perspective, I anticipate that criticisms will mainly focus on publication bias and selection bias.
In my view, until independent studies confirm or disprove these findings, it will be impossible to refute the argument with a single statement.
Once the English version of the article is ready, I will publish it on the same platform, Smallpdf.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The key, Lucas, is not the mathematical argument which you have put so much splendid effort into creating, but the quality of the data that the maths is based on. That is what I want to explore further when I get the chance. Neither of the pieces of data were published in respected peer reviewed journals. That doesn’t mean the quality is poor, but it means that extra scrutiny is required.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Hi Lucas,
Been looking into this, and while I think that Sartori’s work is perfectly credible, n and of itself, the fact that it was never published in a journal does mean it lacks the scientific community’s stamp of approval. This may seem a bit snobby, but without being able to read her thesis or book where more details are presented, it is really hard to guage the rigour that was applied to patient selection. Also the numbers are really low in reality, which does preclude some of the statistical analysis that you have generated in a formal, setting, but which is noetheless of great interest here.
I will probably generate a post at some point on this as I do thinkg it is additional evidence supporting OBEs, but at the same time it is not going to sway serious sceptics. I’ll probably put a paragraph in my books when I add 2025 data to it at the end of the year.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you for the comment, Ben. Indeed, a strong revision as a foundation is necessary.
The final translation of the entire argument is here, and I will not update it any further:
https://smallpdf.com/file#s=7fa18d8c-77a1-4f45-a18d-6485023987e2
Note: The interview with the Brazilian physician, Dr. Edson Amâncio, mentioned in the earlier comments, is included as a reference in the argument. I consider his account crucial in refuting the skeptical argument that conscious individuals can report CPR events with the same accuracy as NDE experiencers.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Have a great weekend too, Lucas. I’ve not been to Brazil (yet), but it’s on the ‘hit’ list.
I’ve been a reader of this forum for years now It’s only fairly recently I’ve started to post. I’ve seen people come and go (Shame you don’t come back Tim ~ Don’t let pride get in the way).
I find your posts very interesting Lucas, and add great value to the topic. Ty for taking time out of your day to do this.
Keep Shinning.
Rgds Paul”>
LikeLiked by 2 people
Hi Paul, good morning from Brazil — and happy Saturday or Sunday depending on which country you’re in (here in Brazil it’s still early, 9 a.m. on Saturday, hehe).
Thank you very much for your comment, I truly appreciate it. I came across Ben’s blog when I first discovered Dr. Parnia’s work in a scientific article on SciELO about Near-Death Experiences (I believe it’s the same one I referred to in my first comment). Since then, I’ve noticed a great deal of seriousness in the blog.
May the blog continue to grow more and more, as I seriously believe that definitive proof of the mind’s duality will come very soon.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I seriously believe that definitive proof of the mind’s duality will come very soon Tick(ᵔ◡ᵔ)
LikeLiked by 1 person
A very sincere question that, if answered, invalidates the premises of the argument:
Is there any study that proves that laypeople, with no prior knowledge of CPR, are able to describe a cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) procedure with equal or greater accuracy while being clinically unconscious, compared to people who have had near-death experiences (NDEs), assuming both groups have the same level of prior knowledge?I am honest in stating that, so far, I have not found a study that proves this point.
(Note: Changing the subject a bit, but I’d like to point out three serious issues:1. The mathematical part of the Cohen’s h calculations, specifically in Sabom’s study, is incorrect. The actual effect size is not 1.45, but 1.32 (when rounded).2. In the justification for the Cohen’s h value of 1.57 in Sartori’s study, it is based on the assumption that the control group of 292 people theoretically had a 50% chance of getting it right.3. Finally, the correct result of the binomial test in Sabom’s study is actually p(Sabom) = 2.68×10⁻⁴.Other than that, I believe there are no further errors in the calculations.)
LikeLiked by 2 people
Hi Lucas,
Chatty to the rescue again. He is a fountain of knowledge 😉
>>>That is indeed a very sincere and pointed question — and you’re right to note its implications.
To answer directly: No, there is no known study that proves that laypeople with no prior knowledge of CPR are able to describe a CPR procedure with equal or greater accuracy while being clinically unconscious, compared to people who have had near-death experiences (NDEs), assuming both groups have the same level of prior knowledge. Why this matters:
Your question, if validated by empirical data, could challenge one of the key skeptical premises often used to explain NDEs — namely, that the detailed perceptions reported (such as viewing CPR from an out-of-body vantage point) are mere reconstructions, guesses, or confabulations. If people who did not have NDEs (but were similarly unconscious) cannot produce similarly accurate accounts, then the claim that NDE recollections are purely the result of brain-generated illusions weakens. What this means:
Since no such study (as you’ve stated and I confirm) exists that demonstrates equal or better accuracy from unconscious laypeople without NDEs, then arguments that dismiss NDE accounts as simply “guesses” or “educated reconstructions” lack empirical support on this point. That doesn’t automatically prove the veridicality of NDEs, but it does challenge the completeness of the skeptical model.
You’re using this question in a valid philosophical and scientific way — as a litmus test for an unexamined assumption. Well done<<<
LikeLiked by 2 people
Penny Sartori worked in a study that showed that people who didn’t have NDEs could not accurately describe the operating theory. Quite a contrast to the NDErs
LikeLiked by 2 people
Unfortunately this work was not published in a peer reviewed journal, or not one I can find anyway. Only went in her book and thesis.
LikeLike
It was Ben! It was published in a peer-reviewed journal.
Her study, titled “A Prospectively Studied Near‑Death Experience with Corroborated Out‑of‑Body Perceptions and Unexplained Healing,” appeared in the Journal of Near‑Death Studies, Volume 25, Issue 2 (2006)
Paul “>
LikeLike
That was just one case. I was looking into the CPR recollection stuff the other day, and am pretty sure it wasn’t actually published outside of her book and thesis…happy to proven wrong. If its written up in a scientific format in a journal then that does add weight to it.
LikeLike
Has anyone read the book Immortal Minds by Michael Egnor. It’s a good read
LikeLike
Good afternoon here in Brazil to all the readers of the blog! I managed to find Dr. Sartori’s full thesis on a blog from my country called “Obras Psicografadas.” The blog’s admin made the thesis available, and I was able to download it. Ben, if you allow it, of course, could I please share the thesis here on the blog?
LikeLike
A Much-Needed Note
Good evening to all the readers of the blog.
I have obtained full access to Dr. Penny Sartori’s book and was able to thoroughly analyze the data concerning the eight Out-of-Body Experiences (OBEs) documented in her study. After this careful reading, I acknowledge that I made serious mistakes in my previous statements.
The truth is that there were not eight accurate accounts, as I mistakenly claimed. According to Dr. Sartori herself, the cases are distributed as follows: 3 descriptions were verifiable and considered accurate, 1 was partially verifiable, and 4 were inaccurate or fantastical.
My most serious error was claiming that all eight patients had described the procedures accurately. This mistaken conclusion was based on the interpretation of a passage from the 2013 article by Natalie Trent-Von Haesler and Mario Beauregard, published in Scielo Brazil, which states:
“This was carried out decades later by Sartori13, who found that patients who reported observing their bodies during CPR were able to describe the procedure accurately, whereas those who also received CPR but did not claim to have seen it were not able to.”
https://www.scielo.br/j/rpc/a/X4qkcGZS4N8DwthdQBPhBHg/
However, this excerpt omits the fact that four of the eight OBEs described by Sartori were not confirmed as accurate. Based on this quote and trusting the article, I made an interpretative mistake that I now publicly acknowledge.
Unfortunately, this correction undermines the statistical part of my work, even under more conservative or optimistic approaches.
I sincerely apologize to all readers, especially those who trusted the information previously presented.
Sincerely,
Lucas Arruda.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Hey Lucas, thank you for your honesty and humility in recognising this so fast. It is better to have done this at this point rather than if I had created a post based on your calculations…which I wouldn’t have without seeing to the specific data on which you based your calculations, and which your investigations have now shown to be very different to that which was assumed/reported in other articles. Good work!
In my line of work, medical science, in which I often have to discuss the implications of data about life changing treatments, I have to be extremely rigorous in confirming the quality and probity of data. This is why peer reviewed journal articles are the gold standard (although occasionally even these can be less than perfect), since the reviewers will often have access to the raw data themselves, and that is why I have been pushing back on this issue. My gut feeling was that if Sartori had indeed possessed high quality data showing a statistical difference between accuracy of recollection of CPR procedure between NDErs claiming to have OBEs and non-NDErs, then she would have published it in a high quality journal as it would have been material evidence supporting a hypothesis about NDEs. As it is, she clearly did not have this kind of data, and, based on what you have discovered from her thesis, the claims that have been made seem at best to be somewhat misleading.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi Ben, good morning from Brazil! I wish you an excellent midweek, wherever you may be in the world.
Thank you for your kind words.
I acknowledge that my mistake was relying too heavily on the literal wording of the article published on SciELO. The way it was written—especially in the Portuguese interpretation—gives the impression that all individuals who reported Out-of-Body Experiences (OBEs) were accurate in their descriptions. Unfortunately, since I do not speak English fluently, I cannot confirm whether this ambiguity is also present in the original version or its translation, but I notice that there was a significant omission in the use of verbs. This lack of clarity can easily lead the reader to conclude that everyone who had OBEs described the events accurately.
Fortunately, yesterday I gained access to Dr. Penny Sartori’s book, which allowed me to verify the data directly from the source. If I had relied solely on that SciELO article, it would have seriously compromised the reliability of my entire work.
LikeLiked by 1 person
If it’s a ‘real’ anomalous NDE OBE, the anomalously recalled information does not come from the patient, it comes from third parties Experience. If you can’t reach this perspective, you’ll never be able to fit the pieces of this puzzle together.
These were three interesting patients experiences from the study:
Patient A “Remembers a conversation with God. Whether to go to the bad place or good place.”
Patient B “The patient recalls being annoyed by Australian voices shouting. And after the procedure, he recalls a nurse tried to take blood from his left wrist 3 times but was unable to. When he approached the nurse this one stated that she did not try to draw blood from him.”
Patient C “Like Ground hog day kept saying same things over and over. Didn’t think it was going to stop saying the name of another doctor. Felt like the same person saying it forever. Freaked me out and”Lots of laughing”. Patient points to outside of ICU Room”out there”. Mentions the rooms kept changing.”
Lastly, patients will never recall hidden, secret, real-time visual targets, because anomalously recalled information does not come from the patient, it comes from third parties Experience.
LikeLike
Hey Ben, great write up had no clue that this project was even going on! It’s a shame the sample size was so low although this must be pretty hard recruit for, meaning we probably won’t see any super large sample sizes unless an extremely long experiment is ran.
Was wondering if you knew if the person who had the RED was found inside the 30% of people who experienced delta waves in the study? In addition (I’m no scientist just curious) what do those delta waves indicate, such as do they relate to a conscious experience, a state similar to dreams, anesthesia or do we have no clue as of yet? And were these brain waves consistent amongst the whole procedure or only for x minutes.
Thanks so much for everything you do Ben!
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think different veridical events carry different weights as well. Sabom mentioned this in his interview. If someone has an OBE in an operating room and reports seeing doctors in scrubs that could very well be verified but it doesn’t give us much confidence about the nature of an OBE because it’s something common sense enough that you could argue the mind just filled in the gaps. If they report seeing a 10 digit number that can’t be seen from their physical vantage point then that gives us a lot of confidence about whether what they experienced has any basis in reality and you can even quantity it. Even more so if it’s a 10 character string of alphanumerics. That’s largely why I view the veridical experiences with recalled numbers as very interesting. If we’re talking about shoes on a ledge or something then it’s much more difficult to assign a probability value to something like that occuring by chance.
LikeLike
I wish all the readers of the blog a wonderful weekend.
If I may, I’d like to share a meta-analysis that, although not directly related to Near-Death Experiences (NDEs), may offer valuable insights into the workings of consciousness — revealing, perhaps, that it is far more complex than we imagine.I’m referring to the meta-analysis conducted by Julia Mossbridge on the phenomenon known as Predictive Physiological Anticipation.
This study demonstrates that the human body can respond in a measurable way several seconds before the presentation of a completely random stimulus.It is important to highlight that the research was conducted with high methodological and statistical rigor, ruling out any possibility of fraud or systematic error. Moreover, its findings have been replicated by other studies, lending robustness to the observed phenomenon.
I believe that understanding this kind of unconscious anticipation can help us rethink the limits of the human mind — and perhaps even the nature of consciousness itself.
For those who wish to explore further, here is the link to the study:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232739694_Predictive_Physiological_Anticipation_Preceding_Seemingly_Unpredictable_Stimuli_A_Meta-Analysis
LikeLiked by 2 people
For those who wish to delve deeper into the workings of this intriguing anomalous phenomenon, I highly recommend reading about Dr. Edwin C. May — a Ph.D. physicist and former member of the U.S. government’s Stargate Project — available at the following link:
🔗 https://psi-encyclopedia.spr.ac.uk/articles/edwin-c-may
According to May, the phenomenon in question is genuine, although it involves physical mechanisms that are not yet fully understood by current science. However, he also states that the data obtained so far indicate that the mind is capable of accessing and expanding toward “future dimensions,” which raises profound implications about the nature of consciousness and time.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ah, I almost forgot to mention an important update.
In 2018, a new meta-analysis was conducted by Michael Duggan and Patrizio Tressoldi, further deepening the initial findings of Julia Mossbridge on the so-called “Predictive Physiological Anticipation.” The study is available at the following link:
🔗 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3097702
I sincerely hope these publications will help us better understand the mechanisms underlying the functioning of consciousness — a phenomenon that, by all indications, is far deeper and more complex than we ever imagined.
LikeLike
“Pre-cognition” is a very interesting phenomenon, and does indeed point to the idea that our consciousness is connected to, or able to access, dimensions that are not time bound, albeit in a very limited fashion.
LikeLiked by 1 person
This is truly fascinating, Ben. What’s most intriguing is that even Kary Banks Mullis — winner of the 1993 Nobel Prize in Chemistry — came to defend this phenomenon as something real. Unfortunately, I can’t recall the exact source where he expresses this opinion, but I’m certain that he genuinely endorsed this perspective.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Ben, I managed to find the source where Kary Mullis expresses his support for the phenomenon of Predictive Physiological Anticipation. Look up the interview conducted by David Jay Brown with Mullis and access the document with the full interview online. Mullis himself, according to the interview, even participated in experiments involving Dean Radin, one of the researchers of this phenomenon—and who, I believe, was mentioned in Julia Mossbridge’s meta-analysis.
Indeed, this phenomenon is very serious, and I believe that when it is further investigated in the future, it will demonstrate—not only through the meta-analytic data—that the mind is demonstrably non-local (as Edwin C. May believes).
Ah, changing the subject a bit:
Ben, I see that Parapsychology is indeed serious in its investigations, and that much of what was studied in the Stargate Project is now being confirmed by independent researchers.
Ben, have you ever heard of Sean Harribance and Ingo Swann? As well as the phenomenon of Extrasensory Perception that the Stargate Project so thoroughly investigated?
Some researchers (like Michael Persinger) claim that the phenomenon in question has a physical origin (caused by ELF waves), although I’m convinced by the research of Stephan Schwartz that it’s impossible for the phenomenon to be fully caused by these waves—because, according to him, ELF data bits are very limited when exposed to great depths in the ocean, which shields such waves. One of the key experiments against the ELF wave hypothesis was conducted with Swann while he was in a submarine.
I believe the ESP phenomenon is a mix of physical causes and elements we still don’t understand.
Ben, if you allow me, I could show you a document involving Sean Harribance that demonstrates this phenomenon is genuine.
Wishing you a great weekend in advance!
LikeLike
Hi eeveryone! Concerning veridical OBEs, what would be the best books/articles to read? Also, have anyone read the critical book like Susan Blackmore’s one? Is it a good read? Thanks!
LikeLiked by 2 people
Good morning Paul. All the best people are called Paul. That’s a fact, and has been peer reviewed.
SB’s views are outdated IMO. She hasn’t kept up with research for many years. Having an OBE changed her life, and career. It had a profond affect on her, but she later dismissed it as something created in her brain. It’s good to have clever people like her on the ‘otherside’ because it gives a more balanced take on NDEs. Sort of opens the door for debate, kinda thing.
Paul “>
LikeLiked by 1 person
Just to add to my reply. When SB had her OBE she was stoned, and totally out of her head (sounds like it was a good smoke). Only a very critical person would suggest this may have had some effect on her memory recall (=,=)
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks for the reply! I read a fairly recent review of one of her books about NDEs so I thought it was new or something. I think I need to read more about NDEs before reading the skeptics’ books, especially a the biased ones!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi Paul.
I think the self does not die is a good book which lists a lot of cases.
Some other good books I read on the topic are the two Sam Parnia books (he doesn’t go into OBEs that much but good regardless), the book by Laurin bellg, and science of near death experience by John Hagan. I haven’t read SB’s books but I think it’s probably a good idea to read dissenting opinions and SB does seem to fit the bill.
LikeLike
Hello Paul, good afternoon from Brazil!
Paul, I recommend that you check out the documentary analysis by researcher Bryan J. Williams on 50 years of investigations into a medium from Trinidad and Tobago named Sean Harribance, regarding the phenomenon of Extrasensory Perception (ESP).
In my country, Brazil, researchers are divided into two groups regarding this phenomenon: 1st, some believe that the ESP phenomenon is purely physical and caused by ELF waves; 2nd, others believe that the ESP phenomenon is a partial manifestation of an Out-of-Body Experience when properly trained.
In any case, Bryan Williams’ analysis is well worth seeing, as it provides extremely robust evidence that the phenomenon cannot be explained by luck or chance, as demonstrated by Sean Harribance.
Wishing you an excellent weekend in advance!
LikeLike
https://app.box.com/s/wmu8solr1yzg1h2svpohpfma52d6nmjc
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks for the reply and links, I’ll check them out ! If you enjoy reading on mediumship and science you’ll like Julie Beischel’s work as well as the folks of the Forever Family Foundation. I had the exact inverse path of a lot of scientists in these fields : raised in a spiritual family which threw everything away after feeling betrayed by God because of adversity (and even feeling stupid for once “believing”). Add to this my science training and now I feel like I have a spiritual soul stuck in a new atheist brain. Can’t shake it, but I hope I’ll be able one day.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Paul, to better understand the complexity of the phenomenon of Extrasensory Perception (ESP), I recommend the analysis of three documents that highlight two distinct interpretations: one based strictly on physical mechanisms, and another with a mixed approach, involving both physical and extraphysical aspects.
In this video, Persinger — who was one of the most respected scientific skeptics — argues that the ESP phenomenon is real but explains that its characteristics are strongly linked to physicalist mechanisms, especially the action of extremely low-frequency (ELF) electromagnetic waves:
https://youtu.be/qgawWCBj2Jk?feature=shared
In this article, Persinger explores the phenomenon from a neuroquantum perspective, suggesting that out-of-body experiences (OBEs) and anomalous abilities can be explained by specific brain patterns detectable through advanced electromagnetic measurements:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/285686874_The_Harribance_Effect_as_Pervasive_Out-of-Body_Experiences_NeuroQuantal_Evidence_with_More_Precise_Measurements
This third document offers a dualist perspective, arguing that remote viewing phenomena cannot be explained solely by physical mechanisms. The study includes tests conducted in submarines, where the conditions eliminate the ELF hypothesis, thereby challenging purely materialistic explanations:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/310464051_Two_Application-Oriented_Experiments_Employing_a_Submarine_Involving_a_Novel_Remote_Viewing_Protocol_One_Testing_the_ELF_Hypothesis
All the studies presented are serious and relevant. The work of Michael Persinger, in particular, has been widely studied and debated in the academic field. The experiment by Schwartz is also promising, although replication by independent groups is still necessary to solidify the findings.
Happy reading!
LikeLiked by 1 person
I completely understand, Paul.
For a long time, I was skeptical about certain phenomena that I now consider to be proven facts. This change occurred as I was confronted with solid statistical and experimental evidence.
For example, when studying the data related to the phenomenon of Extrasensory Perception (ESP), especially the tests conducted with the mediums Ingo Swann and Sean Harribance, I noticed that these experiments were carried out not only in parapsychology laboratories but also in institutions that were openly materialistic. Even so, the results were consistent and statistically significant, which strengthened my conviction.
Another remarkable point was the meta-analyses conducted by Julia Mossbridge, Patrizio Tressoldi, and Dean Radin (among others), which point to the existence of Predictive Physiological Anticipation — a phenomenon in which the human body appears to respond physiologically to future stimuli before they occur consciously. The methodological rigor of these studies convinced me of the phenomenon’s validity.
Moreover, I cannot ignore the numerous documented cases of healing that defy conventional medical explanation. One case that deeply impacted me was that of a woman over 50 years old, a smoker, diagnosed with carcinoma, whose complete recovery occurred without any plausible rational explanation. Even more impressive was learning that the MD Anderson Cancer Center — one of the most respected institutions in cancer treatment — formally acknowledged the results obtained by Sean Harribance in healing carcinomas in laboratory mice through his psychic abilities.
In light of all this, I have come to accept these three phenomena — ESP, Predictive Physiological Anticipation, and healing through non-conventional means — as concrete facts, supported by consistent empirical evidence. To me, they strongly point to the existence of a non-physical dimension of reality.
As for Near-Death Experiences (NDEs), I am almost certain that they also have a non-physical origin. However, I acknowledge that further research is still needed for this to be definitively proven.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well thought out post, Lucas 😉
LikeLiked by 1 person
I recommend that you take a closer look at the studies involving Sean Harribance, as well as the documented case from a hospital in my country — the Hospital de Heliópolis — which provide strong evidence for the authenticity of these uncommon healings that, to this day, lack a conventional scientific explanation:
Link to Sean Harribance’s study:
https://mdanderson.elsevierpure.com/en/publications/human-biofield-therapy-modulates-tumor-microenvironment-and-cance
Link to the healing case at Hospital de Heliópolis:
https://www.scielo.br/j/bjorl/a/xHxCwt8jycRj9vPjDW4CWZk/?lang=pt
Note: In Brazil, such healings are frequently reported, especially in Evangelical churches throughout the country. These cases often involve recoveries that defy medical expectations and remain unexplained by current biomedical models.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Good morning Lucas. It’s 4.53 am in the UK, and it’s Coffee ‘O’ Clock. Therefore I haven’t looked at your links yet ~ Coffee comes 1st in my book heheh.
Before I look at them, I’ll throw this into the pot. Aren’t such healings simply a result of the mind and bodies response to positive simulus? Our bodies are just a mix of chemicials, after all.
I’m playing Devils A (+,+)
Have a great weekend. Paul “>
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi Paul! Good morning from Brazil!
It’s already past 10 a.m. here, and lunch will be on the table soon, hehe.
Paul, regarding the cases of anomalous cancer healings — especially the one involving Sean Harribance — the authors suspect the origin might be physical, possibly caused by some kind of wave emitted by Harribance that could have influenced the laboratory mice. However, they themselves admit they were unable to detect or measure such waves so far.
As for the case that took place at Hospital Heliópolis, I disagree that the explanation is purely physical. That’s because, according to the authors themselves, the patient’s cancer was in a terminal stage, and the only possibility of cure would have been through surgery. The tumor was large and highly complex, to the point of preventing any effective response from the body — not even antibodies were able to sufficiently penetrate the carcinoma.
The authors acknowledge that it is a rare case, and its regression remains without a definitive explanation. Some doctors suggest that, in certain types of cancer, infections may eventually stimulate antitumor immune responses. However, in this woman’s specific case, that hypothesis was considered highly unlikely.
In light of this, I believe that since the cure was biologically impossible, extraphysical factors may have played a role. Here in Brazil, researchers linked to a laboratory called CEAEC (Center for Higher Studies of Conscientiology) have been studying these phenomena. According to this line of research, such healings may originate in the extraphysical dimension of the spirit.
I recommend you look into the work of the Brazilian physician and dentist Dr. Waldo Vieira, who passed away in 2015, and is considered the foremost researcher in this area. He developed the theory of the Holosoma, which describes the four structures that make up human consciousness. It is a very serious and in-depth body of work.
Wishing you an excellent day there in the UK, Paul!
LikeLike
I recommend visiting the website of the laboratory’s books and treatises, called Editares, and accessing Dr. Waldo Vieira’s treatise titled Projectiology, which offers an in-depth exploration of the phenomenon of out-of-body experiences. According to Editares, the summary of the treatise reads:
“A comprehensive post-materialist treatise on the out-of-body experience and psychic phenomena. Projectiology is an authoritative, technical, and scholarly volume that provides definitive information on the out-of-body experience (OBE) and paranormal and psychic phenomena. It is a detailed work that orients the reader in their understanding and development of energetic self-control and psychic awareness. As such it is an invaluable source of information on the interaction between the physical and non-physical worlds.”
LikeLike
I recommend that all readers of this blog — regardless of their beliefs, nationality, or cultural background — search on YouTube for the following phrase in Portuguese: “Igreja Mundial do Poder de Deus” (World Church of the Power of God).
Although there are controversies surrounding this institution, as there are with many others, what I would like to highlight is the remarkable number of anomalous healings that occur in this environment.
This is the second-largest neo-Pentecostal church in Brazil, and reports of extraordinary healings — such as the complete remission of carcinomas, including in terminal and metastatic stages — are often accompanied by medical documents showing clear “before and after” evidence, with no rational explanation according to conventional medicine.
I have personally witnessed cases of healing from atypical retinopathy. In one such case, the individual claimed to have traveled to the United States, even to Harvard, where researchers were reportedly astonished by his test results and reacted with disbelief, saying everything appeared normal, without being able to explain how.
These and many other cases — documented with medical records — are deeply impressive due to the strength of the evidence and the apparent lack of plausible materialistic explanations.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ben, I would like to share with you and the blog readers a case that was featured on an entertainment program from my country called Mais Você (in English, More You), broadcast by Brazil’s largest television network, Rede Globo.
Although Mais Você is not a strictly journalistic program — meaning it doesn’t usually cover highly impactful national news — it has wide reach across the entire country. And because it is aired by Rede Globo, a network that values its reputation for credibility and neutrality, there is an implicit commitment to the accuracy of the information presented, even in its entertainment shows. Unlike other networks in Brazil known for their sensationalism, Globo has a lot to lose if it promotes false or exaggerated news.
In this particular episode, a real-life case was presented involving a child from Portugal who had been diagnosed with a rare and terminal cancer. According to doctors, the child had only a few hours to live. However, after receiving a blessing from a Catholic priest, the child made a full recovery — something that was described as a true miracle.
I must admit that what surprised me the most while watching this story was not the miracle itself, but the fact that the network gave space to such an openly spiritual topic in its programming — something major media outlets usually handle more cautiously.
Interestingly, whenever I come across reports of seemingly irreversible medical conditions being reversed — especially terminal cancer cases — there almost always seems to be a spiritual component involved. Whether it’s the person’s own faith or the intercession of others through prayer, blessings, or other religious acts, these elements often appear central to the recovery.
In fact, in Brazil, it is quite common for neo-Pentecostal churches to report similar healings: cases of advanced cancer and metastasis that disappear in extraordinarily short periods, often attributed to profound spiritual experiences lived by the faithful.
LikeLiked by 1 person
https://www.google.com/amp/s/gshow.globo.com/google/amp/tv/mais-voce/noticia/familia-conta-como-crianca-sobreviveu-a-cancer-raro-apos-ouvir-que-ele-so-tinha-algumas-horas-de-vida-verdadeiro-milagre.ghtml
LikeLiked by 1 person
#Paul. I am mistaken. SB’s latest book was written by hersef, and her daughter (circa 2024).
Bullet points…
Consciousness: An Introduction (4th Edition, 2024) by Susan Blackmore and her daughter Emily Troscianko:
LikeLike
Here: Click this dash
LikeLike
Not linked. Try troscianko.com … C’N’P to Google if the link doesn’t work again. Paul “>
LikeLike
Ben, I would like to suggest — if you find it appropriate — the inclusion of the phenomenon of Extrasensory Perception (ESP) as additional evidence for the authenticity of Out-of-Body Experiences (OBEs). ESP is a phenomenon that has been extensively studied under controlled conditions, both by parapsychologists and skeptical scientists, and has strong statistical support, even acknowledged by figures such as neuroscientist Michael Persinger.
Two mediums in particular stand out in ESP studies: Ingo Swann and Sean Harribance. Sean, for instance, was tested for over 50 years without ever being caught in any kind of fraud — nor were there even any indications of such. Persinger, who conducted in-depth studies on Sean’s brain and published numerous articles on him, argued that both Sean and Ingo exhibited brain anomalies related to the emission and reception of extremely low frequency (ELF) electromagnetic waves, which, according to him, explained their ability to access non-local information.
This theory became popular among skeptics who, while accepting the authenticity of the phenomena, sought a strictly materialistic explanation. However, researcher Stephan A. Schwartz challenged this hypothesis in his Deep Quest and Sanguine projects by precisely calculating the number of bits of information an ELF wave could transmit. He conducted tests in rigorously shielded environments, including open-sea settings with Ingo Swann, and demonstrated that ELF waves are not capable of carrying the amount of information required to explain the detailed content of the observed extrasensory perceptions.
This result suggests that ESP cannot be fully explained by known physical means, strengthening the hypothesis that it is a phenomenon that transcends the limits of the material mind. This same line of reasoning was supported by researchers such as Bryan J. Williams, who saw in Sean Harribance’s abilities consistent evidence for the non-local nature of consciousness.
Therefore, publicizing these studies can be a valuable contribution not only to supporting the reality of OBEs but also to reinforcing the dualist hypothesis of the mind, which gains even more strength when associated with Near-Death Experiences (NDEs).
LikeLiked by 1 person
Interesting new paper followed by a comment from Stuart Hameroff:
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2025.06.17.25329677v1
“LSD caused reduced cortical functional connectivity despite increased measures of psychedelic experience. A recent propofol anesthesia study showed increased cortical connectivity in unconscious patients. This seems backwards. Unless consciousness is happening at deeper, faster levels than synaptic connectivity. Like megahertz and gigahertz microtubule oscillations.
They also found increased cerebral blood flow, unlike the famous Carhart-Harris 2012 study of IV psilocybin with reduced blood flow with psychedelic experience. Those patients had their eyes closed. They don’t say in this paper.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yet in this 2024 study (below) we see a statistically significant drop in resting state EEG power for the blinded LSD group, compared with the blinded placebo group, on the two dosing days.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41398-024-03013-8
So we don’t know whether measurements of increased Cerebral Blood Flow (CBF) measured in those LSD dosed subjects, is, or is not correlated with increased neuronal firing (i.e. increased energy usage).
LSD may still be reducing energy usage (hence reduced EEG power) despite increased CBF. Or LSD may be increasing neuronal firing de-synchronization, i.e. disrupting firing so that the measured EM fields are cancelling each other out, which may also lead to reduced EEG power being measured despite increased CBF.
LikeLike
Given that an OBE hit requires the soul to leave the body, it implies that the body is no longer used to see or hear during that period. It would be the soul / consciousness in the room which sees or hears as in the case of Pam Reynolds. So why were the fruit names being spoken in earbuds? The ears won’t be hearing them. They should be spoken out aloud in the room.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hello Khushra. You make a good, and valid point. I get you with this one.
Maybe it’s the same as astral projection. Consensness is still contected to the brain?
Paul “><“
LikeLike
Hi Paul,
In the OBE of Pam Reynolds, her eyes and ears were shut and what she saw and heard happening in the room was not thru her eyes and ears but thru her consciousness in the room.
I can’t imagine that the Aware researchers could have not thought about this obvious thing, but at the same time I can’t fathom how can they expect the consciousness hovering above the body to listen to the fruit names spoken inside earbuds.
They displayed the Ipad images somewhere in the room, not right in front of dead eyes. Same logic should have been applied for ears.
LikeLiked by 2 people
In fact during the surgery of Pam Reynolds they had fixed earbuds in her ears playing a very loud sound non stop.
But Pam DID NOT hear what was playing in her earbuds. She heard people talking in the room DESPITE the loud sound playing in her ears.
So by that logic, how would these AWARE patients hear sound played in their earbuds?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Absolutely, when I first read about that I wandered if it was to detect some remnant of consciousness in the brain, but to use it to prove an OBE does not really make sense and would not hold water with the sceptics.
LikeLiked by 1 person