What is going on with Terminal Lucidity?
This is a great article in the Daily Mail on research into TL. It really goes into detail in terms of definition and research. It makes the distinction between terminal lucidity and paradoxical lucidity, which are distinct but sometimes overlapping phenomena. Specifically some terminal lucidity…where a patient who has a period of lucidity immediately preceding death…is paradoxical…where they also have so much brain damage (usually due to dementia), that normal lucid conscious activity should not be possible.
Two explanations:
Physicalist – the brain is hugely complex, but its region can adapt to take on tasks normally performed in other regions when those regions become damaged. This may require higher levels of energy or types of neurotransmitter.
Paranormal – the “soul” of the person is returning one last time to say goodbye, and is using a supernatural process to commandeer all of the remaining brain for a brief time to do this.
These are superficial explanations, so would love to see others expand on this. Personally I lean towards the paranormal explanation, but at the same time am less intellectually invested in it than the dualist explanation for NDEs. Also, it is worth noting that Parnia is doing a study looking into this and it will be interesting to see what he has to say when it is published.
Im looking forward to Parnia study. Haven’t seen anything new on his youtube channel. His books Erasing Death and Lucid Dying are good reads
Where the final period of lucidity is not just coincident with a dementia or alzheimers patients good day – as some types of sufferers do have good and bad days.
I’d speculate that genetically related (or learned relationship) networks of third parties who are present, might become entrained with the terminally ill patients networks.
Similar to the way I suspect electrically disrupted networks in wakeful subjects (Blanke et al 2002), might anomalously and temporarily stitch together compatible experiences from third parties who are present, with the subjects own Experience, as the subjects networks seek to restabilise following the the electrical shock: https://x.com/maxxbone/status/1994063897112748293?s=20
If a terminal patients networks are beginning to fail, their networks might become more susceptible to compatible third parties present, which would somehow support these weakened networks, allowing the patient to regain some lucidity.
The same way I think NDE OBE’s might occur in the most extreme version – during cardiac arrest.
Lot’s of stories of dying patients who need their relatives to leave, before they can slip away. Suggesting perhaps that relatives presence, can affect the patients ability to pass away.
Hey Orson! It’s another fascinating topic. I think this recent piece in the NYT will be of interest to you. They give a lot of examples and explain why Parnia joined the study of terminal lucidity. It’s pretty balanced, heck even a bit on the side of alternative explanations. I fear the same kind of problems could soon plague the field of TL though : problems of definitions which will lead some to conclude there is nothing special there… Anyways, I hope you enjoy the read : https://www.nytimes.com/2026/07/14/magazine/terminal-lucidity.html
Thanks Paul. Good article.
Hey everyone! Just found out that Sam Parnia’s study is in phase two of their study and could be done within the next year.
Looking forward to the results of Parnia study. Any new interviews with Dr Parnia. I haven’t found any
Not that I could find any new interviews either
https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2026.1766053/full
Hey Orson!
I’d like to hear your opinion on the article above. I think the article is bullshit, but what do you think?
Yes, BS. Firstly, as a theory it is perfectly fine to speculate on physiological causes for NDEs, and this hypothesis cannot be discounted scientifically given the lack of a scientifically validated OBE. So I have no beef with that.
However, the authors misrepresented Parnia’s data. While many of those who were interviewed had memories of consciousness from their time in CPR, very few of those had NDE like memories, and none of those who reported NDE-like memories had EEG activity consistent with consciousness. Now, from what Martial has said, it seems that she now has cases of patients who report NDEs who also EEG data consistent with consciousness during their CPR. So what? Association is not necessarily causation.
Anyway, while the theory is fine to propose, I do not believe it is the explanation of NDEs and is therefore BS.
Hello, i would like to share my thoughts. Since this article basically misunderstands the AWARE data wouldn’t it be wrong either way no matter what, even tho it is BS and we shouldn’t think much of it, but of coarse as a whole the article is null. As for Martial don’t her Nde description often be wrong like she doesn’t account for the whole proper experience and just mixes it up with other experiences. During the AWARE we have cases of Nde occurring while eeg showed no activity and even other famous cases show that, so even if she had one it wouldn’t do anything other than that it doesn’t matter it still happens without the activity. As for your statement of validation kinda stunned me cuz tho the AWARE was unlucky to not have those targets in rooms of where the actual experience happened but we have already 100s of them just being reasonable to the context of where it happened. PLZ excuse me for any misunderstanding or any wrong things i’ve said.
Yes, agreed. On validation, we do not have scientific validation of OBEs yet, but we have empirical evidence in the form of 2 OBEs reported in prospective studies looking for the phenomenon. The remaining evidence is retrospective observational evidence, which while weaker in terms of its position on the scale of evidence strength, the sheer numbers combined with the sources (HCPs) make it overwhelming evidence, therefore proof, for me.
Interested article. It reminds me of the dying brain hypothesis by Susan Blackmore andcKeith Augustine. However, it doesn’t explain peak in darren and veridical perception. Check out the Pam Reynolds, Al Sullivan and more recently the NDE of Vinny Todd Tollman.
Also look into the research of Anthony Peake and Melvin Morse
Mind Matters
Articles
Podcast
Videos
Subscribe
Donate
Search
Image Credit: Noina – Adobe Stock
A Genuine Science-Based Debate About Near-Death Experiences?
Such a debate seems to be developing. It would make materialism much hard to just take for granted
Denyse O’Leary July 23, 2026 5
Share
At RealClearScience, Michael Zignarelli asks a critical question, “Has Science Dismissed Near-Death Experiences Too Quickly?”
Neurosurgeon Michael Egnor and I think so: we are currently writing a book on the science evidence for them and the difference that it makes (Worthy 2027).
In his article, the Messiah university leadership professor focuses on one aspect of the NDE that certainly requires explanation, the way people who are pulled back from the brink of death have often discovered during the experience things that they seemingly could not have known by other means:
A patient in cardiac arrest later described an ordinary act performed in the emergency room while he was, according to the nurse, “in a deep coma.” The claim carried weight for the same reason crime-scene details do: someone else could verify it. The NDE witness’s story checked out as true…
In another case from the Netherlands, a five-year-old emerged from coma speaking of meeting an older sister named Rietje, a sibling who had died and whose existence had never been revealed to the child. July 23, 2023
Current approaches to NDEs, he points out, focus on explaining them away as the traumas of a dying brain. But the suggested explanations hardly account for their clarity or their tendency to produce life-changing effects not seen following other traumas. “The evidence,” he says, “deserves more than a verdict without a trial.”
Possum tales
But he discusses a recent research contretemps that suggests that explaining away is having a harder time than it used to. In 2025, Charlotte Martial and colleagues put out a paper arguing that evolutionary psychology can account for all that. From an interview by Kristin French at Nautilus:
[Charlotte Martial:] We suggest that something called thanatosis, where animals pretend to be dead to protect against predators, may have been a kind of precursor in evolution. With the evolution of complex brain and language in humans, this stereotypical behavior evolved into the more complex and multi-dimensional experience that is the NDE. Basically, we suggest the NDE is a defense mechanism for coping with a life-threatening situation. It permits the person to disconnect from the environment, from the surroundings, to be absorbed into a more peaceful mental experience.
“The New Science of the Near-Death Experience,” April 17, 2026
So the NDE can literally be explained away as a more complex version of the opossum’s metabolic collapse when it feels threatened (thanatosis). And that’s all we need to know?
But then an interesting thing happened…
When a prominent NDE researcher, psychiatrist Bruce Greyson and colleague Marieta Pehlivanova challenged that thesis in an open-access paper, they were not simply ignored.
At the Washington Post, for example, Mark Johnson did not treat the Martial team’s evo psych views as definitive. He quoted Greyson and Pehlivanova as if they were people who should be listened to rather than explained away:
While calling the model “an admirable strategy,” they wrote that aspects of such experiences cannot be explained solely by brain physiology, and they criticized the NEPTUNE authors for omitting evidence that did not support their ideas.
Although this debate is taking place in the rarefied atmosphere of scientific journals and conferences, it is almost certainly one that has crossed the minds of most people…
The two acknowledged that near-death experiences “are typically triggered by physiological events” but stressed that such events do not account fully for the experiences people have described. They faulted the NEPTUNE authors for dismissing evidence from patients’ near-death accounts and from hospital staff who have supported aspects of those accounts — for example, the number of people who were in the room during resuscitation.
“These patients saw what comes after death. Should we believe them?,” February 5, 2026
Johnson may have sensed that possum tales are not going to be the whole story so he had to choose between the pop science explainaway and getting to the heart of the story. And he felt he could risk choosing the story…
Science has been here before
Zigarelli notes that Martial et al. dismiss non-materialist approaches to NDEs because “a fundamental tenet of neuroscience asserts that the human experience arises from the brain.” Let’s be clear what this means: the purpose of neuroscience is to assert material causes, whether they are good explanations or not.
His response:
At this impasse, history becomes especially useful. Science has faced this temptation toward premature conclusion repeatedly. The classic example: When Galileo saw moons orbiting Jupiter and phases of Venus, it strained the old, geocentric cosmology. Leading scholars dismissed the findings as optical tricks, and church officials eventually sentenced him to house arrest. Now every schoolchild knows that planets orbit the Sun. July 23, 2023
Explainaways, whether possum tales or optical illusions, exist to protect a system from unwanted evidence by ignoring or dismissing it. But as the weight of such evidence grows, they stop sounding so persuasive.
Denyse O’Leary
Denyse O’Leary is a freelance journalist based in Victoria, Canada. Specializing in faith and science issues, she is co-author, with neuroscientist Mario Beauregard, of The Spiritual Brain: A Neuroscientist’s Case for the Existence of the Soul; and with neurosurgeon Michael Egnor of The Immortal Mind: A Neurosurgeon’s Case for the Existence of the Soul (Worthy, 2025). She received her degree in honors English language and literature.
Follow DenyseProfile
Enjoying our content?
Support the Walter Bradley Center for Natural and Artificial Intelligence and ensure that we can continue to produce high-quality and informative content on the benefits as well as the challenges raised by artificial intelligence (AI) in light of the enduring truth of human exceptionalism.
Donate Now
Previous Post
Maybe Being a Loner Helps the Octopus Be Smart?
Discovery Institute Center for Natural and Artificial Intelligence
About Mind Matters and The Center for Intelligence
Mind Matters features original news and analysis at the intersection of artificial and natural intelligence. Through articles and podcasts, it explores issues, challenges, and controversies relating to human and artificial intelligence from a perspective that values the unique capabilities of human beings. Mind Matters is published by the Walter Bradley Center for Natural and Artificial Intelligence.
Articles
Episodes
About
Subscribe
Donate
Are you Paul B. from the Seeking I Video with Darren?
Yes
It would be interesting to know Parnia’s findings on this subject matter. He’s maintained somewhat of a media retreat in the past two years or so.
I wonder that too, hard to tell. I thought at first he didn’t find much of anything because he’s quiet but then yet again he has also come out with a book in the last two years. Maybe he did find something but wants everything finalized and not getting distracted by the media. That’s just my guess.
One wonders why. Maybe he is wanting get a chair (full professorship) and has been told to keep a Lower profile. He is an associate Professor at the moment.
I’m wondering why the derogatory opinion of Parnia? I know you disagree with him on his proposal of disinhibition and his negation of hellish experiences, but this description goes a little beyond those differences (I think). Just curious, since you are well informed of the personalities orbiting this subject matter.
Maybe you are misreading me ass. = associate 🙂 I have a very high regard for him, but understand the politics of academia.
I’ve corrected my original comment to clarify the meaning.
His books Erasing Death and Lucid Dying are good reads. I can’t wait for Parnia next interview
This was from February this year from.Sam Parnia et al
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41582-026-01186-y
https://youtu.be/JzKNiFM3i8g?is=AzSge41ffnFEODTV. Check out this video from Sam Parnia youtube channel
Hello, im here just to check and get an update on NDE or RDE, have had time to check on the lastest ever since Parnia’s study ever since ive been very busy, what is the lastest on NDE Parnia Martial etc. Ive read a few previous comments like ones from yall and kevin, his point on sensory leakage and etc caught my eye because hasnt this point be already put foreward and been debunked thanks to major cases like Pam Reynolds and etc and ofc the 100s of OBE cases on the book (iforgot the name of) which completely removed the possibility of sensory leakage is moot and impossible. either way ya, sorry for my casual english. hope yall have amazing times.
I believe the books you might be referring to are The Self Does Not Die and the Handbook of Near Death Experiences
I’ve got both of those books. They’re good reads
Found a new article that came out on TL
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/consciousness-and-meaning-at-lifes-end/202607/magic-mushrooms-and-terminal-lucidity/amp
Really fascinating study. Thanks for sharing it. What are your thoughts?
While it’s not like bigger studies or prospective studies like Sam Parnia’s, it’s still informative and does raise some serious philosophical questions about the mind- body relationship. I think that Alexander Battyany’s work along with others is long overdue for this phenomenon and I’m looking forward to what they find.
A paper I often referred to back in 2013-14, which supported my views that the brain provides “access to” past Experience, rather than storing the actual past Experience, was Li-Huei Tsai’s 2007 paper “Recovery of learning and memory is
associated with chromatin remodelling”. A great paper.
Tsai showed that inducing robust synapse and dendritic growth, using trichostatin A injections, plus Environmental Enrichment (EE) can apparently recover long term memories in pk25 mice, even after they have experienced massive neuronal destruction.
That long-term memories can be recovered by EE supports the idea that the apparent ‘memory loss’ is really a reflection of inaccessible memories.
Tsai saw the same improvements in associative learning with trichostatin A injections in wild mice, as previous studies have seen in Prarie Voles injected with trichostatin A, which caused a speeded up pair bonding effect.
Both studies results seem to be caused by an increase in the ability to construct (and retain) spatial network structures in the brain.
Trichostatin A *significantly* increases the ability to make Acetylcholine, by increasing the availability of the enzyme choline acetyltransferase.
**And interestingly, Psilocin *significantly* increases the release of the already-made Acetylcholine.**
I think the pattern of spatial network structures themselves is the key to our different perspectives upon shared Experience. Working on my assumption that some shared structure, within material from which the networks are constructed, must somehow have sufficient isolation to transcend spacetime (wormhole/quantum entanglement etc.).