This is a recently released French NDE documentary that I really enjoyed. It is quite long, so you might want to break it into 2 sessions, but well worth watching as it covers the subject thoroughly with some fresh thinking, various interviews with well known researchers from both sides and some intriguing new cases I had not come across before and were quite recent. (Click on the image to see the YouTube trailer)
Overall while the skeptics were given a lot of airtime, the framing was very balanced and up to date. Of note was a recent interview with Charlotte Martial who gave more details about her study and position. Key points for me:
Some of the cases were new to me: There were a number of good examples in the video that I hadn’t come across before, which made it very interesting.
The focus on cases of people seeing things outside the room stood out: I found these especially compelling, particularly the one about the man in Iran (I think he was an Imman). This was a good angle for the film maker to take as the usual lazy explanation skeptics provide of the patient being semi conscious when they claim to observe things in the ER cannot possibly apply. It forces the skeptic to claim that the subject is being dishonest somehow.
The sceptical pushback felt frustrating: What annoyed me was that the sceptics were allowed to argue against each case one by one, instead of having to deal with the cumulative evidence of hundreds, if not thousands of cases saying the same thing.
The elucidation of Charlotte Marshall’s new study methodology was valuable: This is where I first learned about the method she is now using of filming the emergency room during the study to either confirm, or otherwise, claims made by patients during periods of unconsciousness. This may overcome the issue with objects on shelves or images on screens not being observed. It reverses the evidence process from the patient needing to confirm a specific item of a scene, to the video confirming observations unpredictable observations of the room. This is much more likely to provide scientific evidence if any of the patients in the study have an OBE.
The thorough examination of the difference in quality of recall between people who say they’ve had out-of-body experiences when they weren’t actually near death vs those who were near death provides strong support to the validity of NDEs. NDEs are unique and can’t be reproduced using other techniques.
As always the burden of proof is backwards: It’s annoying that people act as though near-death experiences or dualism have to be proven in order to challenge the current scientific view. For millennia dualism was the established consensus, and science has not provided any evidence at all to change that, and yet the physicalist assumptions of science are now regarded as the established paradigm requiring scientific evidence to challenge it. This is methodological materialism and it is biased. I understand why, and the value of this approach, but it creates a false understanding in the minds of the wider population.
The point about the sheer number of cases mattered: The video does make this point near the end, but I think it needed to be aimed more directly at the sceptics in the interviews.
Interesting new study idea. The filmmaker is involved in establishing a study called the ROSETTA study that seeks to validate observation from OBEs that occur in visitor waiting rooms. The rationale is that people are drawn to their loved ones when they first separate from their bodies and often report witnessing conversations or events etc that occur in waiting rooms. I have some doubts about the protocol, but at the same time support any research that seeks to understand and characterize this phenomenon better. I wish them luck.
On balance the film provided further support to the understanding that NDEs do not have a natural explanation. Definitely worth putting some time aside (and a bit of cash) to watch this even though it is in French (if you’re French, that will be a bonus, but most who come here are English speaking). It is available with subtitles or dubbed on Apple TV and Amazon.
(Disclaimer: I was given a free advanced viewing of the documentary by the filmmaker but this did not in anyway influence my review.)
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.
I read this in an article today and felt sympathy for the judge after my own recent experience of writing on this blog:
“What the judgment effectively said is that feelings are not facts; there is only ever one version of the truth – the one that can be proved, with evidence.”
This related to the court case in which Prince Harry, a somewhat emotional chap, and a bunch of other celebs tried to sue the Daily Mail for illegally obtaining information about them. The facts did not support their claim, and the judge threw it out. Virtually all the facts were human testimony. The volume and credibility of this human testimony made them facts in the eyes of the judge. This kind of evidence is empirical evidence. Post modern relativism likes to promote the idea of “lived truth” but in the end there is only one truth, ever, even when insufficient facts are available to prove it, that truth still exists but we just don’t know it is true for sure. Truth vs false is binary…always.
It got me thinking about the reaction to recent posts that I have created here, and I think feelings have clouded people’s view of what I am doing. I am seeking truth on this subject, nothing else. I have beliefs based on evidence, but if the evidence points without doubt to a truth that is different from what I believe, then my beliefs will crumble. So far in my life the evidence has pointed mostly one way – but enough of my beliefs.
Historically this blog has focused very much on factual evidence. As an important reminder, here is the sum of factual evidence regarding the 2 competing hypotheses that attempt explain NDEs – the “Dualism” hypothesis that NDEs are the result of the consciousness or soul separating from the physical body when the heart stops beating and the brain stops functioning; and the “Physicalism” hypothesis – that the brain generates the experience.
After 50 years of research these are the facts about the evidence:
1. Evidence supporting Dualism:
There is significant, if not overwhelming empirical evidence to support the hypothesis.
This evidence is comprised almost exclusively of reports by experiencers that they were able to observe events or objects that it would have been impossible to observe given the state of clinical death or post CA unconsciousness that they were in. Many of these people were reliable witnesses, otherwise ordinary citizens from all walks of life.
There are many hundreds of these reports that have been verified by Healthcare professionals, including field leading physicians, who had nothing to gain, and sometimes much to lose, by publicly supporting these claims. Over 120 of these have been rigorously researched and documented in the excellent book by Titus Rivas, The Self Does Not Die.
2 of these verified OBEs occurred in prospective research studies that were published in peer reviewed journals and therefore were subject to scrutiny from scientists.
2. Evidence against the Dualistic hypothesis:
None. There is no evidence that directly challenges this explanation. There have been some attempts to debunk a few of the more famous reports, but by and large these attempts were themselves debunked.
The sum of the factual evidence supporting the dualist hypothesis is significant. To say otherwise requires believing that hundreds of highly intelligent, generally sceptical and deeply ethical healthcare professionals were either duped by very sick patients or were lying.
3. Evidence for the physicalist hypothesis:
Reports of brain activity in rats for up to 30 seconds into CA;
reports of brain activity in suffocating coma patients but not during CA;
reports of brain activity in patients who are in CA but undergoing CPR in AWARE II, but these patients did not report NDEs (2 who had EEG activity were interviewed but had no recollections)
And most recently it appears that Fritz and Martial have collected EEG data consistent with conscious activity from patients undergoing CPR who reported NDEs. A publication is expected in the coming weeks or months that will provide more detail.
Disruption of normal brain activity through various means e.g. psychedelic drugs, epilepsy, meditation techniques etc – produce experiences that measure greater than 7 on the Greyson scale and thereby might be regarded as analogous to NDEs and demonstrate the theoretical possibility that NDEs are induced by brain activity.
4. Evidence against the physicalist hypothesis
If you disregard the evidence for dualism, then you can argue there is no evidence against the physicalist hypothesis.
On first viewing you have 2 hypotheses that both have evidence supporting them with little to no evidence against them. However when it comes to weight of evidence there is a very significant difference, and this relates to the specificity of the evidence.
When it comes to OBEs, the primary objectively measurable piece of evidence supporting dualism, there is no possible alternative explanation for a verified OBE other than that the consciousness was able to observe itself from outside the body (this is supported by cases in which the attending physicians specifically stated that patients eyes were closed the whole time – or even taped closed, or that there was no heartbeat at the time of the reported observation as in AWARE I). This, combined with the sheer number of high quality verified accounts makes this evidence overwhelming in nature.
What about the physicalist evidence. It is all circumstantial and suffers from the fundamental scientific principle that correlation does not necessarily imply causation. While it is plausible to say that this EEG activity may be causing the NDEs, it is equally plausible to say that the EEG activity is caused by the NDEs...namely the disinhibition theory of Parnia’s. More likely it is caused by sufficient oxygenated blood from CPR causing the brain to start “rebooting” (the 2 cases from AWARE II support this explanation). NDEs and EEG activity may sometimes be associated when CPR is applied, but causality is not elucidated by this data. Moreover, what about NDEs that occur outside of a hospital before CPR is applied?
As for the analogous experiences, while Martial claims to show significant similarity between drug induced NDEs (or other “natural” causes) other researchers, including Parnia, Greyson and Van Lommel have all shown that these experiences are very different. Furthermore, while there are reports of OBE-like experiences, these are actually just visual distortions and there have been no validated OBEs from these experiences, supporting the idea that these particular experiences are indeed merely the result of disrupted brain activity.
In summary it is factually true to say that you have very strong empirical evidence supporting dualism, with no evidence against it, and weak circumstantial evidence supporting physicalism, also with no evidence against it.
It is also factually correct to state that for millennia human beings believed in some form of dualism. This is not strong evidence, but it is no less strong than the assertion by scientists that there is always a natural explanation for every observation. Both are beliefs based on worldview and lead to bias when interpreting results (I try my hardest to suppress this bias, but it is almost impossible).
As far as my bias allows me to see, the facts of the matter are that an objective analysis of evidence points to the sum of evidence strongly favouring the dualistic explanation.
So far so good…and most who come here accept this statement. There is no real emotion at play here. Feelings are not especially disturbed by this, unless you are a fanatical physicalist who is so wedded to their ideological position that it is a fundamental affront to their core identity.
Where feelings have become inflamed is when I have discussed the implications of the above truth…namely what come out of the understanding that because the evidence supports NDEs being real, by implication, the subjective elements of NDEs must therefore also be regarded as authentic accounts of what people experienced, and to an extent “real”, especially when these people describe these experiences as feeling more real than our existence here. This inevitably leads us into philosophical or religious territory especially when despite retaining certain core elements, the subjective accounts differ in so many ways. I would argue that again I am only discussing empirical evidence or facts but even the discussion of this has caused a significant amount of negative mail in my inbox, including one person suggesting that I had somehow lost the plot! I can assure everyone here that my beliefs and interpretation of the implications of NDEs has barely changed at all since starting this blog. Yes, my understanding has evolved, especially on simulation theory, but the central beliefs haven’t. That aside, as a result of the negative response, I have tried to separate the purely objective discussions around emerging NDE research, from the subjective interpretation of that.
But is that the right thing to do?
Let’s analyze the recent topic that has caused the latest tranche of negative mail…the subjects of Hellish NDEs and simulation theory. Despite what people may “feel”, in all of this I have been discussing facts (reports of experiences are facts) and trying to understand what truth we can learn – the truth in this case is the answer to the question “Does Hell exist?”. Some people are so offended by the idea, that they allow their emotions to flare up and blind their ability to reason (I believe this is what lies behind Parnia’s drive to exclude these experiences from analysis). It is a legitimate question though, and of existential importance to answer. I believe I know the answer, but I cannot provide proof to state with certainty it is true, but I believe that the evidence supports that position (if not I would not believe it). In fact, despite the newspaper story headlines of previous posts, I do not state that the evidence proves anything, but rather that it points to certain possibilities. They fail to report on the other possibilities that I discuss in my book.
So let’s look at the facts on both these subjects as they are of fundamental importance to humanity, and therefore, whether or not they stir up emotions, they must be discussed, and we must try our hardest to elucidate the truth to help guide us.
On “Hell”:
Facts providing supporting evidence for its existence:
Fact 1: Hellish experiences are reported as part of the subjective element of NDEs. The reports are less common than positive experiences, ranging from about 5-20%.
Fact 2: Despite the 2022 consensus paper’s assertion that these experiences are not authentic NDEs (in that they meet the defining criteria of a Greyson scale), they are because they do. [they do not meet the new RED criteria though because these criteria discount these experiences by default…a huge logical fallacy]. This is proven by the fact that the citation the consensus paper uses to underpin this position (Cassol, Memory 2019) actually says the opposite of what the paper claims it says. Specifically it states that other than positive feelings, negative NDEs share all of the other traits of authentic NDEs, and are otherwise identical in phenomenology.
Fact 3: Virtually every dualist religion that has ever existed describes Hell-like states being a consequence of actions or decisions in this life.
Facts providing supporting evidence against its existence:
Given that CPR induced consciousness, which is often traumatic, is very different in its phenomenology to NDEs, I will discount this and so there is no evidence against its existence. None. Only emotions. Only feelings. Only a strong desire for it not to exist.
Therefore applying logical reasoning it is correct to state that there is more evidence that Hell exists than that it doesn’t. The quality of the evidence is less strong than the evidence that supports the reality of OBEs or NDEs because it is based on subjective unverifiable accounts, and religious teachings. This means that is reasonable to be skeptical about its existence, but it is also reasonable to believe in it, and those who react with blind emotion to this discussion are not doing anyone any favors. In fact they are inhibiting humanity from exploring what must be one of the most important subjects that exists.
I will not drag this on any more, nor will I visit the other discussions from my book that drew the interest of the Daily Mail, namely those around whether more people might have Hellish experiences than is reported due to dissociative amnesia or the concept of death of the soul. Nor will I enter the religious understandings of how to avoid this state, but I must be absolutely clear…the discussion of whether Hell exists or not belongs outside of the religious discussion due to the empirical evidence for its existence (eye witness accounts from living people who had NDEs).
What about simulation theory?
Again this drew quite a bit of negative response, but it is a legitimate question that many ask, and has been a question that has existed for decades since we understood the potential for AI etc. I am not going to go over the discussion in detail as I did this a few posts back, but there is evidence from NDEs that the life we experience in this dimension shares parallels to what we understand simulations to be in a broad sense. Therefore it is not unreasonable to believe that this existence is a simulation. It is also reasonable to believe that it is not a simulation, although any evidence that people might produce to say this isn’t a simulation could be shot down with the answer that the designer of the simulator put it there to fool us into believing this is reality!
There are other facts that support the idea this is a simulation. The existence or emergence of life, the universe and consciousness defy the laws of nature and science that govern the very same universe. It is a paradox that points to the Universe’s existence being a fabrication or illusion. Chemistry and quantum mechanics point to the illusory nature of matter and even time.
Do these facts prove we are living in a simulation? No, but again that makes it is reasonable to believe that such an understanding might be true.
Beyond that any discussion on the originator of the simulation and its purpose are purely speculative and philosophical/religious in nature. But some people think that the very discussion of the subject of life being a simulation is offensive or philosophical. It is not. It is a legitimate question raised due to the evidence from NDEs, the subject of this blog.
Anyway, I hope this has clarified things a bit. My posting on these subjects is not out of a desire to “preach my version of what I believe the truth to be”, but rather it is an attempt to arrive at baseline “likely” truths supported by available evidence. These are:
It is rational to believe that a Hell-like state exists beyond this dimension. It is less rational to not believe this.
It is rational to believe we live in something akin to a simulation. It is equally rational to believe we aren’t.
It is irrational, and a position based on subjective emotions to say that positions 1 and 2 are irrational!!
So to all you Prince Harry’s, please stop your emotions from ruling you.
Follow up article to the original one. Another British newspaper is also interested in this. There are some bits that I don’t actually say, or are not quite the same as what I said, but generally a good article that gets people thinking hopefully.
Someone either made a mistake and tried to change their own password for this site, or they tried to hack my account for this blog. I now have a name and address in Germany (amazing how easy it is to find these things!). By coincidence, I am half German and know the area well from visiting family. I will give them the benefit of the doubt on this occasion, but if it was deliberate…please don’t try again…instead be good to your fellow man.
When you read a good book, or watch a well directed film, or play an immersive game, or take certain drugs, and especially when you dream, your consciousness is momentarily separated from this existence. In the examples of books films or games, your consciousness is being manipulated by creative talent to exist in their created world. In the example of dreams or drugs, your consciousness is involuntarily separated from “reality”.
What if our consciousness is currently actually in a similar created reality, only the creator is of such genius you cannot tell it is not real? If so, is your consciousness itself real or just part of the simulation? These are questions that lie at the heart of simulation theory.
I talk about simulation theory in my book “Did Jesus Die For Nothing?” But at that point in time I would say my thinking was still evolving. I defined simulation theory as something distinct and related to the understanding that we live in a computer or AI generated simulation, but ultimately the creation of an external intelligence of natural origin. This is something many of my Ph.D. colleagues subscribe to once they understand that life and the universe are not possible by natural means. However, and I do allude to it a bit, the fact is that the idea of simulation theory can be applied much more broadly.
I was watching Musk talk about this recently, and he described how simulations are designed to test theories, engineering etc in a safe and consequence-free environment. He used the example of simulating rockets in computers etc. Pilots are tested in simulators. Exams are a form of simulation. In ancient times men would practice fighting with wooden swords. All these are simulations. Some of these simulations are designed to help us learn and prepare for real situations which may be life of death in nature, other simulations are designed to test people or technology to see if they are up to the task. I will come back to these different applications at the end and which I think we live in.
So to the question at the start…are NDEs evidence we live in a simulation? Yes, absolutely they are. If NDEs are real, then the claim that virtually every experiencer makes – that this is not reality, is overwhelming evidence that the life we live is not real. In both my books I talk about this extensively, but don’t really equate that understanding to a simulation, mainly because the word simulation has a modern context that didn’t instantly feel as though it applied. But it does, and even from a Christian perspective, it is accurate.
Back to NDEs. Many people report leaving their bodies and observing their dead bodies and feeling absolutely nothing for those bodies. The pain has gone. The bodies are now anathema. They have become their “real” selves. They are “home”. Conversely when they return they feel that they are being pushed into something unnatural. They are being inserted back into the “simulation” (this is why the Matrix (I) has always been my favourite film…it has always spoken to an underlying truth about existence, albeit in a fictional context…II and III were garbage). During NDEs the experiencers are sometimes told that earth is a “learning” environment or “school”. There, they live outside time, here we are constrained by time.
All this is evidence that we are living in a simulation. As a Christian that makes absolute sense to me since we are told we live in a created environment. The difference though is that rather than being a school, the Christian teaching is that the simulation is a test. Again, I do talk about this in my book focusing on Christianity and the purpose of the test.
As I have thought about this more and more a new (and obvious) revelation has come to me, and one that answers one of the greatest questions about God…one of the biggest objections to [Christian] God is:
IF GOD IS GOOD, AND IN NDES WE LEARN HE IS GOOD, THEN WHY DOES HE ALLOW SUFFERING?
Answer:
The suffering isn’t real.
The suffering feels real while in the simulation, but from an observer outside it is not real just like in a film. This is something that NDE experiencers immediately observe about the suffering they had experienced in the instant before leaving their bodies. It is not of consequence.
However, provided that our consciousness is indeed real, and not itself a part of the simulation (something we cannot ever prove or disprove), not everything about the simulation is without consequence. I believe that the response to the suffering or whatever circumstance you face, is the true reality…it is the output from the simulation, the information about your consciousness that the test, or designer of the test, was seeking to learn.
Two people faced with precisely the same circumstances will react differently to those circumstances. The circumstances aren’t real, the CONSCIOUS response is, and the consequences, or information about the nature of that consciousness, are real to.
I look forward to your thoughts on this.
Lastly, WordPress and my service provider have been sending me bills, and while I can afford to pay them, I like to feel that what I do here is valued. Some have already paid this year, if you haven’t then please go to buy me a coffee and make a contribution, or buy one of my books and if you like it leave a favourable review (min 4 stars which is regarded as average)
So in this post we are going to look at a slide presentation created by Charlotte Martial and presented recently (click on the diagram below to access the full PDF). Thanks Mak and Z for providing this. As we know Martial is more than sceptical about supernatural or paranormal explanations for NDEs. This presentation is very much along those lines in its attempt to provide a natural explanation for NDEs and also presents evidence from their NDE study which appears to be data that will be presented in a journal in the near future by her colleague Fritz.
First let’s look at the model she uses to explain the natural emergence of NDE’s in a life-threatening situation. I’m not going to look too closely here at the neurotransmitter explanation because frankly the interaction of neurotransmitters with their various receptors inside the brain are extremely complex, and while what is offered in the diagram may appear plausible, its relevance is a moot point. Why do I say that?
The neurotransmitter diagram is just the biochemical explanation underpinning the overarching hypothesis behind the Martial group’s natural explanation for NDEs. The central premise of the hypothesis is based on the idea that NDEs, or specifically the phenomenology associated with NDEs, are a product of evolutionary processes and provide a survival advantage. This hypothesis, which has been presented in various forms by sceptics over the past decade, ultimately fails to survive contact with serious scrutiny. There are a number of reasons why I say that:
Prior to the discovery and implementation of CPR in the 1950s, authentic near death experiences were extremely rare. Moreover there is absolutely no evidence that NDE like experiences ever contributed towards survival when humans were threatened. For a neurological mechanism to emerge through evolutionary processes, it would be a trait that is relatively common and would’ve been observed and known about prior to the emergence of CPR. This is something that would’ve been observed during battles throughout history or when humans were hunted by predators. That just isn’t the case. You do not hear of hundreds of examples of soldiers having near death experiences and surviving battles. Martial tries to imply that this process kicks in when fight or flight is no longer an option. This is speculation based on absolutely zero evidence from the historical record, and does go against what we do know about the fight or flight system. So the only instance in which this might have occurred is on operating tables since the 1950s and this is not long enough to allow evolution to create this new mechanism.
The idea that becoming floppy or imobile or in a state of peace is going to aid survival in the kinds of life-threatening situations where humans would be exposed to just does not make sense. Survival in life-threatening situations is almost always dependent on fighting back or running away from the life-threatening situation. Yes people might pretend to play dead but this would be a conscious process, and particularly when it comes to natural predators would prove futile as they would just be an easy meal, but even in a military situation it is well known that soldiers pretended to play dead and enemy combitants would go round putting their swords through bodies lying on the ground to make sure that the soldiers were dead. The other kinds of life-threatening situations usually caused by disease or old age or drowning or fire would not really see a benefit from the phenomenology of NDEs either. It’s nonsense.
Moreover, when it comes to the actual definition of NDEs, Martial has created her own set of parameters which allow her to expand experiences away from the parameters that the consensus statement created. As a result, she is able to claim that fainting produces NDE like experiences. These experiences are nothing like authentic NDEs. This is one of the reasons why I’m much more supportive of Sam Parnia’s RED definition since the patient actually must have their experience in proximity to clinical death and the experiences must contain more clearly defined elements following a narrative arc.
Now we’ll look at the EEG data that is presented and will be in the paper being prepared by Fritz. Obviously without the full data set which will hopefully follow in a future publication it is difficult to tell precisely what is going on. However, it appears that they have data on the EEG of 11 unconscious patients, seven of whom didn’t have NDEs and 4 who did have NDEs. They then look at the complexity of the EEG signals of the two different groups and claim that the NDE group has a higher level of complexity. In one breath they state correctly that they can’t determine things with absolute precision, in the next they make the claim that the brain of NDE patients remains more organised and dynamically active. Any medical scientist of any repute looking at the bar charts representing this data and considering the tiny numbers of patients involved, would instantly dismiss any assertion. The error bars overlap, and there is insufficient difference between the two groups to draw any conclusions about the level of complexity between them. This won’t stop the Guardian and other atheist press outlets from claiming that this data shows that is are the result of brain activity. The fact that there is brain activity in both groups, combined with the reality that there is no statistical difference between the activities of both groups, and our knowledge that they are using a loose definition of NDE to characterise these groups, means that this study is not providing anything new (unless they have an authentic NDE with associated EEG…but even then for the reasons below, it is irrelevant).
Even if we saw significant differences in the brain activity between the NDE group and the non-NDE group, as we have said so many times association is not necessarily causation. Sam Parnia’s dissociation explanation is just as valid. If any such difference did exist it could be related to the consciousness separating from the brain.
Finally, while all this is interesting and gives sceptic something to talk about, none of this comes close to explaining validated OBEs and never will.
Well maybe not fame, but a bit of attention. Rob Waugh got in touch with me last week and asked a few questions, next thing thoughts from my book appear in the Mail!
Daily Mail article about one of the findings from my book.
There are a few mistakes in it which I’m sure some of you will notice unfortunately. The journalist said he will change them when he is able to access it again…can’t ask for more than that
Anyway, I am putting this in the general news section and I want to steer clear of the religious implications, but I do want to revisit this topic as I believe it is incredibly important. We need to understand just how real and just how prevalent these experiences are so that we can determine if we should take them seriously and do more to help others avoid this fate. Obviously my faith does influence my stance on this, but I do not want to bring that into this discussion, just focus on the evidence we have from research and individual accounts.
Firstly, Parnia’s consensus statement said that negative NDEs weren’t REDs (or authentic NDEs) but episodes of consciousness during CPR, however the very paper he used to justify that, a paper by Cassol published in Memory in 2019, said the opposite…that they were identical to positive NDEs except for leaving the experiencer with a negative rather than a positive feeling. The first question I would love to hear from you on is whether you think these are authentic NDEs, and if they aren’t, what evidence do you have to support that position? Or if you feel they are, likewise.
Secondly the article highlights only one of the potential theories explaining why only 10% have NDEs…namely that due to dissociative amnesia it is possible that many more people have these negative experiences than is currently the case. I do state that this is only one possible explanation rather than THE explanation as the article implies, but obviously to attract attention the story focuses on this one and not on the less interesting ones. I can live with that even if it’s a bit of a distortion of what I say. What are your thoughts on this?
Someone pointed out to me that some of my overtly religious comments ended up in a general post (the one that was created to say I had a new religious section!). I have now moved that over to the religious section, but want to apologise if you came here expecting unbiased NDE discussion and got slapped in the face with my Christian position.
This happened because WordPress is a bit rubbish on the APP I use and I can’t always see what the original post was that I am now commenting on. I will do my best to not let this happen again. I do have a very clearly defined position on religion, but am aware that the majority of people do not share that and have always tried to keep the forum neutral on this topic. However, a few people said they wanted to talk about religion so I created a separate section where we are free to state whatever we want provided it is not insulting to individual contributors and is based on reasoned discussion. However, it is inevitable in these types of discussion that people will be offended by other people’s beliefs and statements of beliefs…if that is you, probably best to stick to the main page!
[NB ALL POSTS END UP IN THE “BLOG” SECTION, IF YOU WISH TO AVOID ANYTHING RELIGIOUS USE THE DROPDOWN TO CHOOSE NDE NEWS…I AM GOING TO HAVE TO THINK ABOUT CHANGING PROVIDER AS WP IS NOT GOOD OR I AM MISSING SOMETHING]
Anyway, there will be a new post this weekend about the latest NDE article from the Daily Mail in the UK. It may get some people hot under the collar.
(I will delete any comments in here that refer to specific religions directly, but feel free to express how you feel about the topic of discussing religion etc, the way that I have endeavoured to separate church and state and the general crappiness of WordPress)
I am making some changes to the structure of the blog. If you click on blog, you will get everything, but if you hover over blog and allow the menu to drop down you can chose a category. At the moment there are only 2 categories, but I will be adding a few more so that if you are only interested in NDE news…which has been the majority of content, click on that sub gategory.
I have tried using WP Hide Post to avoid sub category posts like religion appearing in the main blog and just keeping the main blog for NDE news, but it corrupts the site, so for the moment the main page will have everything, but you can filter using categories as above.
Comments welcome here…if you hate it, or have suggestions how I can improve it or for new categories, go ahead and let me know. Current thinking on categories:
This is a recently released French NDE documentary that I really enjoyed. It is quite long, so you might want to break it into 2 sessions, but well worth watching as it covers the subject thoroughly with some fresh thinking, various interviews with well known researchers from both sides and some intriguing new cases I […]
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 […]
I read this in an article today and felt sympathy for the judge after my own recent experience of writing on this blog: “What the judgment effectively said is that feelings are not facts; there is only ever one version of the truth – the one that can be proved, with evidence.” This related to […]
Follow up article to the original one. Another British newspaper is also interested in this. There are some bits that I don’t actually say, or are not quite the same as what I said, but generally a good article that gets people thinking hopefully.
Someone either made a mistake and tried to change their own password for this site, or they tried to hack my account for this blog. I now have a name and address in Germany (amazing how easy it is to find these things!). By coincidence, I am half German and know the area well from […]
When you read a good book, or watch a well directed film, or play an immersive game, or take certain drugs, and especially when you dream, your consciousness is momentarily separated from this existence. In the examples of books films or games, your consciousness is being manipulated by creative talent to exist in their created […]
So in this post we are going to look at a slide presentation created by Charlotte Martial and presented recently (click on the diagram below to access the full PDF). Thanks Mak and Z for providing this. As we know Martial is more than sceptical about supernatural or paranormal explanations for NDEs. This presentation is […]
Well maybe not fame, but a bit of attention. Rob Waugh got in touch with me last week and asked a few questions, next thing thoughts from my book appear in the Mail! There are a few mistakes in it which I’m sure some of you will notice unfortunately. The journalist said he will change […]
Someone pointed out to me that some of my overtly religious comments ended up in a general post (the one that was created to say I had a new religious section!). I have now moved that over to the religious section, but want to apologise if you came here expecting unbiased NDE discussion and got […]
I am making some changes to the structure of the blog. If you click on blog, you will get everything, but if you hover over blog and allow the menu to drop down you can chose a category. At the moment there are only 2 categories, but I will be adding a few more so […]
Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here:
Cookie Policy
