a critical look at sight to the blind during a near death experience

as a believer in NDEs and as someone who likes to read about afterlife science, there is this point that i see that troubles me. when we read about people seeing for the first time during an NDE, i see two types of outcomes. one, is where the person inexplicably describes what they were seeing using words only a person who has the experience with sight could say. like, a child sees, but they can’t call a tree a tree unless someone told them it is a tree etc. next, we have people who more convincingly ‘know’ they saw, but they dont have the language to describe it, as that’s not formed within them yet.what should we make of this discrepancy? like with religious claims, a lot of believers would like to say it’s sort of like a ‘miracle’ and if someone can describe what they saw, that’s just more to the power of the afterlife. then, we have the skeptics, who think that shouldn’t be possible that blind people can describe what they saw. this discrepancy doesn’t debunk the science that the blind can see, but it’s such a tall order thing to believe that i can understand why someone who is already profoundly skeptic just would insist on not believing it. i mean, even if the other types of ‘seers’ were accurate, and they only knew they saw but couldn’t describe it, then all we would have for sure is their claim, and no way to verify it. i have no doubt there are senses on other side that we can’t know of here, but it seems to always be the case with good afterlife science, that it’s beyond description. like trying to describe 4D or 5D in a 3D world