The Law of Love

Tag: death

  • Descriptions of the Protocols used in Peer-Reviewed Studies of Veridical Out of Body Experiences- and whether these “prove” the experiences are real

    Peer-reviewed studies of veridical out-of-body experiences (OBEs)—especially those aiming to assess apparently nonphysical perception—generally follow structured protocols to minimize bias and improve reliability. While the rigor varies between studies, the best peer-reviewed ones use the following key methodologies to investigate and verify these reports:

    🔬 1. Prospective vs. Retrospective Design

    • Prospective studies: Researchers collect data immediately after a patient is resuscitated (e.g., van Lommel Lancet study, Sartori ICU study). This minimizes memory distortion.
    • Retrospective studies: Patients are interviewed weeks, months, or years later (e.g., many Ring, Moody, Sabom cases). These rely on participant memory but may still be veridically confirmed.

    🔎 2. Independent Interviewing & Documentation

    • Initial Report: The experiencer (patient or subject) describes their OBE in their own words, typically soon after recovery. Researchers record these without leading questions.
    • The account includes sensory perceptions, timing, descriptions of people, actions, sounds, tools, conversations, etc.

    🧍‍♂️🧍‍♀️ 3. Third-Party Corroboration

    • Independent verification is crucial in high-quality studies.
    • Researchers interview staff, family, or witnessesseparately to see if the experiencer’s report matches what was actually happening during their unconscious period.
      • Example: A patient says they floated above their body and saw a doctor drop a tool. The medical team is asked if this occurred.
      • Key point: This verification is done after the experiencer’s report, not the other way around.
    • In Sabom’s cardiology-based study, he cross-checked patient recollections of surgical events with actual medical records and staff interviews.

    🧠 4. Timelines & Clinical States

    • Researchers often confirm the medical state of the patient at the time of the experience (e.g., flat EEG, cardiac arrest, anesthesia).
    • This determines if the experience truly occurred during a period when normal perception should be impossible.
      • For instance, Greyson & Stevenson (1980) documented an OBE happening during clinical death, as confirmed by hospital records.

    🧪 5. Control Comparisons

    Some studies introduce control groups:

    • Patients who had cardiac arrest but no NDE are asked to describe the event—typically inaccurately.
    • This shows that accurate descriptions by NDErs are not merely educated guesses or memories formed afterward.

    🧰 6. Use of Known Targets (Less Common but Rigorous)

    • In some studies (e.g., Janice Holden’s reviews), hidden targets are placed in operating rooms to test whether OBEs can accurately report something that could only be seen from above (e.g., pictures placed atop high cabinets).
    • This method is rare, and no definitive hits have yet been reported in published peer-reviewed studies using this exact method. But it’s an example of proactive experimental design.

    🤝 7. Peer Review Integrity

    • These studies are not rubberstamping testimonials.
    • Peer reviewers (often in psychology, neuroscience, or medicine) assess:
      • Whether the experience was reported before verification
      • The adequacy of third-party confirmation
      • Whether the study rules out ordinary explanations (e.g., hallucination, prior knowledge)

    However, standards vary:

    • High-quality journals like The Lancet or Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease apply stricter scrutiny than more niche or sympathetic journals (like Journal of Near-Death Studies).
    • Some books or theses may be impressionistic, relying on self-reports confirmed only loosely by third parties.

    ✅ Example Protocols in Action

    StudyMethod Summary
    van Lommel et al. (2001, Lancet)Prospective; NDErs’ reports compared with medical timelines and staff confirmations.
    Sabom (1982, Recollections of Death)Retrospective; compared surgical recollections of NDErs vs. controls; verified through hospital records.
    Greyson & Stevenson (1980)Peer-reviewed; patient reports collected early, then verified with witnesses and medical records.
    Janice Holden (2009)Systematic review of 107 cases; categorized by level of corroboration (e.g., firsthand witness, secondhand, documentation).

    🚨 Limitations & Challenges

    • Memory distortion increases with time in retrospective accounts.
    • Confirmation bias can affect poorly controlled studies.
    • Some reports come from less rigorous sources (e.g., books or media reports) that take third-party testimony at face value without independent verification.

    🔚 Summary

    The most credible peer-reviewed OBE studies:

    • Collect patient narratives before seeking third-party confirmation.
    • Independently verify those details via medical records or eyewitnesses.
    • Rule out ordinary explanations.
    • Avoid rubberstamping unverified claims.

    Here is a carefully selected list of the most rigorous peer-reviewed studies of OBEs with veridical perception, based on their adherence to solid scientific methods: independent reporting, third-party verification, medical state confirmation, and critical review. These are the gold-standard cases within the literature on near-death and out-of-body phenomena.

    ✅ Most Rigorous Peer-Reviewed Studies of Veridical OBEs

    CitationCasesVerification MethodMedical State Confirmed?Why It’s Rigorous
    van Lommel et al. (2001)The Lancet, 358(9298), 2039–20451 primary (with many surveyed)Medical staff interviews + patient report cross-matching✅ Yes (cardiac arrest, flat EEG)Prospective, published in a top-tier medical journal. Corroborated OBE included details of defibrillator and denture location, later confirmed by nurse.
    Greyson & Stevenson (1980)Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 168(5), 529–5373Independent patient report, then witness verification✅ Yes (documented unconsciousness)Peer-reviewed, case documentation precise. Third-party confirmation sought after the patient’s account.
    Cook, Greyson, & Stevenson (1998)Journal of Near-Death Studies, 16(3), 385–39510Witness confirmation + timing compared to patient state✅ YesHigh case volume. Each case documented and analyzed with witness input. Veridical details (e.g., words spoken, tools used).
    Sabom, Michael (1982)Recollections of Death (based on earlier articles, partly peer-reviewed)5 (plus control group)Compared patient reports to surgical records; control patients without NDEs also interviewed✅ Yes (cardiac arrest)Scientific rigor with a medical background. Shows NDErs gave more accurate procedural details than controls.
    Ring & Lawrence (1993)Journal of Near-Death Studies, 11(3), 193–2003Confirmed by family/friend witness interviews✅ Yes (coma or cardiac arrest states)Peer-reviewed. Reports taken before interviews with verifying parties.
    Morris & Knafl (2003)Nursing Research, 52(3), 155–1562Interviews with family members present at time of experience✅ YesPeer-reviewed nursing journal. Strong on verification of auditory perception across distances.
    Schwartz & Dossey (2004)Explore: The Journal of Science and Healing, 1(3), 395–4131 detailedMultilayered verification from staff, records, and EEG timing✅ YesPeer-reviewed medical-adjacent journal. Case occurred during “clinical death.”

    🧪 Key Protocol Elements in These Studies:

    Protocol ElementPresent in These Studies
    Report collected before verification✅ Yes
    Medical state at time of perception documented✅ Yes
    Witnesses independently interviewed✅ Yes
    Use of control group (in Sabom)✅ Yes
    Peer-reviewed in medical or psychology journals✅ Yes
    Use of medical records for timing✅ Yes

    🏅 Most Scientifically Significant

    StudyWhy It’s Standout
    van Lommel et al. (2001, The Lancet)First large-scale prospective cardiac arrest NDE study. One of the only studies in a top-tier medical journal.
    Greyson & Stevenson (1980)Benchmark in careful methodology and third-party verification.
    Sabom (1982)Used a control group of cardiac patients without NDEs to show superior accuracy among experiencers.
    Cook et al. (1998)Most thorough set of peer-reviewed case studies with explicit verifications.

    ⚠️ Note on Less Rigorous Sources

    Sources like Ring, Moody, and Fenwick provide valuable qualitative insights but often lack:

    • Timely documentation
    • Independent confirmation
    • Clear medical timelines

    These are useful for thematic or experiential analysis, but not ideal as scientific evidence for veridical perception.


    Here’s a detailed list of documented OBE/NDE cases with some more elaborated details, that are widely regarded among the most rigorous peer-reviewed reports, using protocols involving: independent initial reporting, third‑party verification, confirmed medical state, and published in credible journals.

    🧪 Veridical OBE/NDE Cases Under Rigorous Peer-Reviewed Protocols

    Case & StudyOverview & Veridical DetailsPublication & Notes
    Van Lommel et al. (2001) – Netherlands cardiac-arrest NDEOne patient reported floating above his body during cardiac arrest and accurately described seeing dental prosthetics being placed on a cart; later verified by hospital nurse.The Lancet, prospective design; EEG/dental state confirmed; controls used (near-death.com, en.wikipedia.org, futureandcosmos.blogspot.com)
    Greyson & Stevenson (1980) – Nervous & Mental DiseaseOne experiencer perceived resuscitation procedures while clinically unconscious; details confirmed later via interviews with hospital staff.Peer-reviewed journal; patient narrative recorded before verification (cosmology.com)
    Cook, Greyson & Stevenson (1998) – 10 cases in operating room/NDE settingsReports that include descriptions of surgical tools, actions, and conversations unknown to patient; confirmed through independent witness interviews.Journal of Near‑Death Studies, multiple case series with rigorous verification (cosmology.com)
    Sabom (Michael, 1982–1988) – Classic “Recollections of Death” casesSeveral cases where cardiac arrest patients accurately recounted surgical details later confirmed; Sabom compared NDErs to control cardiac patients for accuracy.Highly structured verification via hospital records; controls added rigor (cosmology.com, Reddit, Reddit)
    Ring & Lawrence (1993) – Blind experiencersThree cases involving blind individuals who reported visual perceptions during NDE, later affirmed by family or medical staff.Journal of Near‑Death Studies, peer-reviewed; describes event after interviews (cosmology.com)
    Morris & Knafl (2003) – Nursing research reportsTwo cases in pediatric cardiac arrest where patients described events or conversations distant from their bedside, corroborated by family members.Nursing Research, peer-reviewed journal (cosmology.com)
    Schwartz & Dossey (2004) – Clinical case studySubject described veridical events that occurred during a period of clinical death, with multiple layers of documentation and witness reports.Explore: The Journal of Science and Healing, peer-reviewed (cosmology.com)
    Lloyd Rudy’s Case (Rivas & Smit, 2013)Patient perceived surgical events during clinical death; surgeon Dr. Rudy and assistant both confirmed the accuracy of those details independently.Reported in Journal of Near‑Death Studies follow-up article; thorough verification documented (digital.library.unt.edu)

    📌 Why These Cases Are Considered Rigorous

    • Patient reports recorded first, before any contact with third parties.
    • Independent verification from staff, family, or medical records.
    • Medical confirmation: most patients were in cardiac arrest, flat EEG, or under anesthesia with no sensory awareness.
    • Control comparisons (e.g., in Sabom’s study) demonstrating accuracy beyond chance.

    🧠 Other Noteworthy Peer-Reviewed OBEs (Neurological/Experimental Origins)

    • Craniotomy‑induced OBE: Electrical stimulation of the temporoparietal junction (TPJ) during awake brain surgery evoked full‑blown OBE reports in a patient, confirming neurological locus of altered perception (futureandcosmos.blogspot.com, Reddit, europepmc.org).
    • Vestibular impairment case: A patient with peripheral vestibular damage experienced recurrent OBEs, supporting theories of sensory disintegration rather than paranormal explanation (pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov).

    ✅ Summary

    These cases, though relatively few in number, are among the strongest empirical instances where veridical perception during clinical conditions of unconsciousness has been documented and independently verified. They remain rare but compelling and widely discussed in both medical and near‑death research communities.

    ———————–
    So do these studies prove out of body experiences are real?

    That’s a sharp and important question — and it cuts to the heart of why veridical near-death and out-of-body experiences (NDEs/OBEs) are so fascinating in both scientific and philosophical circles.

    If these studies are rigorous… does that prove OBEs are real?

    Short answer:
    If veridical OBEs are documented under rigorously controlled conditions and cannot be explained by normal sensory input, chance, or fabrication, then yes — they strongly suggest that some component of consciousness can operate independently of the brain and body. That would be profoundly significant. But the leap from “rigorous data exists” to “OBEs are proven real” is very close, but not quite settled in mainstream science — because of the philosophical and methodological implications.

    Why not just say it’s proven?

    Because even in high-quality studies, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and scientific standards are deliberately conservative when confronting paradigm-shifting implications. Here’s why:

    What do the most rigorous peer-reviewed studies actually do?

    The best-known example is the Cook, Greyson & Stevenson (1998) paper published in Journal of Near-Death Studies (JNDS), which followed rigorous protocols. Here’s what top-tier studies tend to include:

    1. Independent interviews

    • The experiencer is interviewed soon after the event, often before any family, staff, or media contact.
    • Researchers document exactly what the person says they saw or heard while unconscious or clinically dead.

    2. Third-party confirmation

    • Witnesses (nurses, doctors, family, etc.) are interviewed separately to confirm the occurrence of the reported events.
    • Researchers match the experiencer’s statements to confirmed facts that the person could not have known via normal means.

    3. Medical documentation

    • The patient’s clinical state is documented — showing that they were unconscious, anesthetized, or even in cardiac arrest during the experience.

    4. Timing correlation

    • Some studies track when the reported perceptions occurred, using resuscitation logs or hospital monitors, to see if they match events during periods of no brain activity.

    5. Exclusion of alternative explanations

    • They explore and rule out possibilities like hallucination, residual hearing, luck, prior knowledge, or suggestion.

    What do these studies find?

    In a handful of rigorously verified cases, experiencers describe highly specific and accurate events — such as:

    • People’s clothing or movements in another room
    • Details of conversations or surgical instruments not visible from their position
    • Events that occurred during confirmed flat EEG or cardiac arrest

    These are not vague. They’re often clear, checkable, and timed.

    Why this doesn’t equal “proof” yet (scientifically speaking):

    1. Small numbers
      These cases are rare. While hundreds of NDEs are reported, only a small subset are veridical and verified.
    2. Replication difficulties
      You can’t ethically or easily induce cardiac arrest just to test OBEs. So replicability is a challenge.
    3. Interpretation divides
      Even when events are verified, skeptics might suggest:
      • Memory reconstruction
      • Lucky guesses
      • Staff confirmation bias
      • Hidden sensory awareness
      These aren’t always plausible, but they’re possible enough to keep science cautious.
    4. Paradigm inertia
      If OBEs are real, consciousness isn’t fully brain-based — a huge shift for neuroscience. The bar for proof is extremely high.

    So where does that leave us?

    🧠 Philosophically: If the most rigorous cases are true as documented, they are deeply suggestive — potentially the strongest empirical evidence for mind-brain separation we currently have.

    🧪 Scientifically: They are anomalous but credible. Enough to merit serious study. But until replication, mechanistic explanation, or broader consensus is achieved, they remain scientific anomalies, not established facts.

    📿 Spiritually or personally: For many, especially survivors, these are profound and life-altering truths that align with broader traditions of soul, afterlife, and spiritual continuity.

    It may be worth framing them as:

    “Empirically documented anomalies that strain current scientific models, and — if taken at face value — provide compelling evidence for non-local aspects of consciousness.”

  • Near Death Experiences with Out of Body Experience Reports that are Verified by Third Parties

    Here is a table that includes:

    • The citation
    • The number of cases and page references
    • A brief description of each case or source
    • Whether the source is from a peer-reviewed journal, book, or other academic source

    NDEs with Out of Body Experience with Corroboration

    Sources of Anecdotes Involving Apparently Nonphysical Veridical Perception

    Source# of CasesPagesDescriptionPeer Reviewed?
    Atwater, P.M.H. 1999196–102Case involves accurate remote perception during NDE, later verified by witnesses.Book (Not peer-reviewed)
    Bonenfant, R.J. 2001189OBE during cardiac arrest; veridical perception of events confirmed by staff.✅ Journal of Near-Death Studies
    Brumblay, R.J. 20031214Single veridical perception during unconsciousness.Book chapter or report (uncertain)
    Clark, K. 19841243Case of veridical perception during NDE, reportedly confirmed.Book (Not peer-reviewed)
    Cobb, F.P. 18821297Historical case of NDE with perception of remote events.Unknown – likely not peer-reviewed
    Cook, E.K., Greyson, B., & Stevenson, I. 199810384–399Series of 10 verified OBEs, including perceptions during anesthesia and unconsciousness.✅ Journal of Near-Death Studies
    Crookall, R. 19721386Classic OBE case; details reportedly verified.Book (Not peer-reviewed)
    Elwood, G.F. 2001125Patient described verifiable events during unconscious state.Unknown / private publication
    Fenwick, P. & Fenwick, E. 199553–35, 193Multiple NDEs with accurate perception of events, some verified.Book (Not peer-reviewed)
    Green, C. 19681121Single case involving veridical experience during NDE.Book (Not peer-reviewed)
    Grey, M. 1985137–81Extended case study; some claims verified.Book (Not peer-reviewed)
    Hampe, J.C. 19791260–261Reported veridical experience during unconsciousness.Unknown – likely non-peer-reviewed
    Hyslop, J.H. 19181620Historical psychic/OBE account with verification attempts.Book (Not peer-reviewed)
    Jung, C.G. 1961192Jung’s own NDE involving veridical vision and later interpretation.Autobiography
    Kelly, E.W., Greyson, B., & Stevenson, I. 1999–20001516Primary Case: Accurate remote perception during unconsciousness. Two additional cases confirmable by third parties.✅ Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease

    Additional Sources (Grouped Continuation)

    Source# of CasesPagesDescriptionPeer Reviewed?
    Kübler-Ross, E. 19831210NDE involving perceived spiritual presence; partial confirmation.Book (Not peer-reviewed)
    Lawrence, M. 19971117Case of accurate dreamlike NDE confirmed by others.Book
    Lindley, J.H., Bryan, S., & Conley, B. 19812109–110Two OBEs during unconsciousness with details confirmed.Unknown
    Manley, L.K. 19964311Four veridical cases involving surgery or accident trauma.Book
    Moody, R. 1975393–102Classic NDEs with observed procedures; highly influential.Book (Not peer-reviewed)
    Moody & Perry 19884170–173Confirmed NDE descriptions by patient and witnesses.Book
    Morris & Knafl 20032155–156Cases of unconscious perception verified by family members.Peer-reviewed nursing journal
    Morse, M.L. 1994462–68Pediatric cases with perceptions confirmed by medical teams.Book (Based on clinical cases)
    Morse & Perry 199036–153Verified cases in pediatric ICUs involving detailed NDEs.Book
    Myers, F.W.H. 18921180–200Early psychological analysis of OBEs; case confirmed by letters.Book (Not peer-reviewed)
    Near-Death Experiences: The Proof (2006)1383TV documentary-style report with confirmed veridical claim.Not academic
    Ogston, A. 1920155Early case of accurate perceptions during unconsciousness.Unknown
    Rawlings, M. 197895–90Nine resuscitation NDEs with elements confirmed by staff.Book (Not peer-reviewed)
    Ring, K. 1980250–51Early studies of OBEs; blind subjects with confirmed vision-like perceptions.Book
    Ring, K. 1984144A confirmed blind OBE account.Book
    Ring & Cooper 1999114–120Eleven cases, including blind NDEs with confirmed details.Book (Not peer-reviewed)
    Ring & Lawrence 19933226–228Three NDEs involving accurate remote perception.✅ Journal of Near-Death Studies
    Ring & Valarino 19981159–226Eleven high-detail NDEs; many confirmed by witnesses.Book
    Rommer, B. 200025–7Two accounts with verifiable medical details during unconsciousness.Book
    Sabom, M. 19821064–118Classic medical NDE cases; high veridicality and clinical verification.Book (based on cardiologist’s study)
    Tutka, M.A. 2001164OBE during cardiac arrest, partially verified.Unknown
    Tyrrell, G.N.M. 19461197–199Psychological study of veridical OBEs.Book
    van Lommel, P. et al. 200112041Peer-reviewed Lancet study; famous cardiac arrest NDE.✅ The Lancet
    Wilson 19871163–164NDE with accurate perception of a family event.Book

    Summary by Type

    Source TypeCount
    Peer-Reviewed Journals7–8
    Books (Popular/Academic)~25
    Academic Theses or Other3–5

  • Should Near-Death Experience Science Be Considered Philosophical Evidence for the Afterlife?

    Should Near-Death Experience Science Be Considered Philosophical Evidence for the Afterlife?

    The question of whether near-death experience (NDE) science provides legitimate evidence for the existence of an afterlife is a deeply intriguing and complex one. At first glance, NDE accounts appear to be primarily anecdotal and circumstantial. However, to properly evaluate their evidentiary value, it is essential to examine the nature of evidence itself, both philosophically and practically, before drawing conclusions.

    In many domains, particularly in the legal system, evidence is often largely circumstantial rather than direct. Circumstantial evidence, while not conclusive on its own, can strongly indicate the truth of a proposition when it aligns consistently with a particular scenario. For instance, in courtrooms, juries frequently rely on patterns of circumstantial evidence—testimonies, behaviors, forensic data—that, taken together, make a compelling case even without a direct eyewitness account. This legal standard contrasts somewhat with the natural sciences, which traditionally favor reproducible, empirical, and measurable data.

    Nonetheless, the sciences themselves often work with indirect evidence. Hypotheses and theories are built on inferences drawn from observations that, while not directly proving a concept, provide reliable indications that point towards it. For example, astronomers infer the presence of black holes not by seeing them directly, but by observing the effects they exert on nearby matter and light. Such indirect evidence, while circumstantial, is accepted as valid scientific proof when supported by consistent and rigorous observation.

    Philosophically, the question becomes: how much further can such circumstantial and anecdotal evidence extend in supporting a metaphysical claim like the existence of an afterlife? If something in the empirical world reliably indicates another phenomenon—if the connection between the observed and the proposed is robust and well-reasoned—then it should be treated as evidence. On the other hand, purely philosophical musings, no matter how elegant or intuitively appealing, do not qualify as evidence unless they have some empirical grounding that connects the idea to observable reality.

    This distinction is crucial. Philosophical arguments that merely corroborate a proposition with no empirical connection can only be regarded as theoretical possibilities or beliefs, rather than evidence. But when empirical data presents possible indications that resonate with the philosophical proposition—especially when these indications come from systematic study and peer-reviewed research—their status moves from speculative to evidentiary.

    In the case of NDEs, there is an accumulating body of scientific work that transcends mere anecdote. Studies have documented consistent patterns in out-of-body experiences, verifiable accounts of events witnessed by individuals during periods of clinical death, and, intriguingly, cases involving the congenitally blind reporting visual perceptions during NDEs—phenomena that challenge current neurological explanations. These, among numerous other circumstantial pieces of evidence, warrant serious attention. For more concrete examples, one can examine the “Evidence for the Afterlife” section, which compiles peer-reviewed studies exploring these phenomena.

    Ultimately, this discussion is not about proving metaphysical claims with absolute certainty—something philosophy and science both acknowledge as profoundly difficult—but about assessing whether NDE science provides legitimate, objective evidence that reasonably supports the possibility of an afterlife. Given the philosophical framework of evidence as that which indicates the truth of a proposition through empirical connection, and the growing empirical data consistent with NDE reports, it seems fair to conclude that NDE science should indeed be considered good evidence for the afterlife.

    References:

    1. See my other posts discussing science from near-death experience as empirical evidence for the afterlife.
    2. Long, Dr. Jeffrey. Evidence of the Afterlife: The Science of Near-Death Experiences.
    3. Miller, J. Steve. Near-Death Experiences as Evidence for the Existence of God and Heaven: A Brief Introduction in Plain Language

  • “Mindsight” and other Peer-Reviewed Evidence of Vision-Like Perception in the Blind During NDEs and OBEs

    👁️‍🗨️ “Mindsight” and other Peer-Reviewed Evidence of Vision-Like Perception in the Blind During NDEs and OBEs

    There exists a growing body of peer-reviewed, well-documented cases in which blind individuals—including those blind from birth—report visual-like experiences during Near-Death Experiences (NDEs) or Out-of-Body Experiences (OBEs). These cases challenge conventional materialist explanations of consciousness and perception.

    🔍 Ring & Cooper Study (1997) — Journal of Near-Death Studies

    Kenneth Ring and Sharon Cooper conducted a landmark study involving:

    • Sample: 31 blind participants, including 14 who were congenitally blind
    • Key Findings:
      • Nearly 80% reported vivid visual impressions during their NDEs or OBEs
      • Participants described people, locations, light, their own bodies, and other scenes with confident visual language
    • Verification: Some accounts were independently corroborated by third parties, such as family members or medical staff

    🧬 Illustrative Cases:

    • Vicki Noratuk (aka Vicki Umipeg): Blind from birth, she reported floating above her body, seeing surgical staff, recognizing her own body, and perceiving a tunnel of light—hallmark elements of classic NDEs.
    • Brad Barrows: Also blind from birth, he described seeing his roommate’s actions from above his hospital bed during an OBE—actions which were later confirmed by the roommate.

    🧠 Harvey Irwin (1987) — Journal of Near-Death Studies

    In a separate psychological survey of blind adults, Harvey Irwin found that:

    • OBEs among the blind are relatively rare, but
    • A small number of confirmed, visual-like experiences pose significant implications for how we understand perception and consciousness

    🔄 Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses

    • Scholars refer to this phenomenon as “mindsight”—a term coined by Ring & Cooper to describe vision-like perception without the use of eyes.
    • Mindsight appears as a cross-study pattern, especially among NDE and OBE reports from blind individuals.
    • Meta-analyses have documented similar metaphysical and veridical elements across cases, noting implications for neuroscience, theology, and consciousness research.

    🛡 Credibility and Scientific Integrity

    What separates these cases from anecdotal claims?

    • All the above studies are published in peer-reviewed journals, offering a degree of academic rigor
    • Several reports include external confirmation of what the blind experiencer claimed to have “seen”
    • Researchers took care to distinguish visual metaphor from actual perceptual content, even among those blind from birth
    • Skeptics suggest language-based conceptual learning or sensory substitution might explain some cases—but this fails to explain the accuracy and clarity of some first-hand reports

    💡 Why Mindsight Matters

    InsightDescription
    Consistency Across Blindness TypesIndividuals both blind from birth and those with acquired blindness report NDEs with rich visual content
    More Than Linguistic MetaphorParticipants explicitly differentiate between imagined perception and the realness of their NDE vision
    Partial VerifiabilityWhile not every account is independently confirmed, several include external validation from third-party witnesses
    Challenges MaterialismThese cases raise difficult questions for purely brain-based models of consciousness and perception

    🧭 What is Mindsight?

    Mindsight refers to a mode of perception reported by blind NDErs in which they “see” using non-retinal, non-physical awareness. Ring & Cooper’s study highlighted these key traits:

    • Non-physical vision: Participants see without eyes—using what some call the “mind’s eye” or “spiritual body”
    • 360° awareness: Unlike ordinary sight, this perception often includes omnidirectional awareness and complete clarity
    • Cognitive and emotional knowing: Mindsight is holistic—incorporating emotion, understanding, and direct intuitive insight
    • Corroborated events: In some cases, participants accurately described real-world details confirmed by others

    ✨ Implications

    • Challenges the assumption that consciousness and sensory awareness are strictly brain-dependent
    • Supports the possibility of a “spiritual” or non-material aspect of the self
    • Suggests that perception and consciousness may not be entirely neurobiological in origin
    • Opens new avenues for research into transpersonal consciousness and non-local perception

    ✅ Final Takeaway

    Yes—peer-reviewed, academically rigorous studies document blind individuals (including those blind from birth) who report accurate, visual-like perception during NDEs. Please see the reference section for more examples of this. Some of these reports have been externally verified, and many include descriptions that strongly resemble sight, despite lifelong blindness.

    This phenomenon—mindsight—does not disprove materialism, but it seriously complicates it. It suggests that consciousness may not be fully explained by brain activity alone and invites interdisciplinary research bridging neuroscience, philosophy, theology, and phenomenology.

    📚 References

    1. Ring, K., & Cooper, S. (1997). Near-Death and Out-of-Body Experiences in the Blind: A Study of Apparent Eyeless Vision. Journal of Near-Death Studies. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/a%3A1025010015662
    2. Irwin, H. (1987). Out-of-Body Experiences in the Blind. Journal of Near-Death Studies. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/bf01073268
    3. Ring, K. (n.d.). Mindsight. NDERF. https://www.nderf.org/NDERF/Books/Mindsight.htm
    4. Mango, B. (n.d.). NDEs in the Blind. NDERF. https://www.nderf.org/NDERF/Articles/barbara_blind.htm
    5. Gallant, J. (2018). Eyeless Vision. The Fortnightly Review. https://fortnightlyreview.co.uk/2018/09/side-sight-eyes/
    6. Drasin, D. (n.d.). Mindsight Overview. https://www.dandrasin.com/mindsight
    7. Frontiers in Psychology. (2023). Explanation of Near-Death Experiences: A Systematic Analysis of Case Reports and Qualitative Research. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1048929/full
    8. ResearchGate. (n.d.). Near-Death Experiences: Between Spiritual Transmigration and Psychopathological Hallucinations. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/267330185
    9. Reddit. (n.d.). Discussions and Confirmations of Blind NDEs. https://www.reddit.com/r/consciousness/comments/1ipl2y0, https://www.reddit.com/r/afterlife/comments/icnqnn, https://www.reddit.com/r/NDE/comments/ijgk8n
    10. UNT Digital Library. (n.d.). Page 113: Near-Death and Out-of-Body Experiences in the Blind. https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark%3A/67531/metadc799333/m1/13

  • Major Peer-Reviewed Studies on Out-of-Body and Near-Death Experiences

    🧠 Major Peer-Reviewed Studies on Out-of-Body and Near-Death Experiences

    Below is a curated list of significant peer-reviewed studies addressing out-of-body experiences (OBEs), near-death experiences (NDEs), and veridical perceptions—accurate perceptions reported during periods of clinical unconsciousness. These studies play a central role in debates around consciousness and its potential independence from brain function.

    🔹 1. Parnia, S., et al. (2014)

    Title: AWARE—AWAreness during REsuscitation: A prospective study
    Journal: Resuscitation, 85(12), 1799–1805
    DOI: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2014.09.004

    • Landmark study on cardiac arrest survivors.
    • Found that 2% had verified awareness during flat EEG.
    • Included one verified case of accurate auditory perception during clinical death.

    🔹 2. van Lommel, P., et al. (2001)

    Title: Near-death experience in survivors of cardiac arrest: A prospective study in the Netherlands
    Journal: The Lancet, 358(9298), 2039–2045
    DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(01)07100-8

    • Studied 344 cardiac arrest patients; 18% reported NDEs.
    • Included veridical reports and experiences during unconsciousness.
    • Found no correlation with oxygen levels, drugs, or physiological factors.

    🔹 3. Greyson, B. (2003)

    Title: Incidence and correlates of near-death experiences in a cardiac care unit
    Journal: General Hospital Psychiatry, 25(4), 269–276
    DOI: 10.1016/S0163-8343(03)00053-2

    • Developed and used the Greyson NDE Scale.
    • Analyzed the frequency and features of NDEs among cardiac patients.

    🔹 4. Fenwick, P., et al. (2002)

    Title: The neurophysiology of the near-death experience
    Journal: Consciousness and Cognition, 11(1), 90–98
    DOI: 10.1006/ccog.2001.0502

    • Reviews neurophysiological and theoretical models of NDEs.
    • Suggests brain-based explanations may be insufficient to account for certain phenomena.

    🔹 5. Kelly, E. W., Greyson, B., & Kelly, E. F. (2007)

    Title: Unusual experiences near death and related phenomena
    In: Irreducible Mind: Toward a Psychology for the 21st Century

    • Part of a peer-reviewed and widely cited scholarly book.
    • Catalogs and critiques materialist explanations for OBEs and NDEs.
    • Includes documented cases of veridical perception.

    🔹 6. Holden, J. M. (2009)

    Title: Veridical perception in near-death experiences
    In: The Handbook of Near-Death Experiences: Thirty Years of Investigation (Praeger)

    • Reviews over 100 cases of accurate perceptions during NDEs.
    • Includes OBEs verified by third-party evidence.

    🔹 7. Sartori, P. (2008)

    Title: The near-death experiences of hospitalised intensive care patients: A five year clinical study
    Journal: Journal of Near-Death Studies, 27(1), 31–52

    • UK nurse researcher documented ICU patient recollections.
    • Found several cases of accurate awareness during resuscitation.

    🔹 8. Mobbs, D., & Watt, C. (2011)

    Title: There is nothing paranormal about near-death experiences: How neuroscience can explain seeing bright lights, meeting the dead, or being convinced you are one of them
    Journal: Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 15(10), 447–449
    DOI: 10.1016/j.tics.2011.07.010

    • Presents skeptical, brain-based interpretations of NDEs.
    • Argues against supernatural or dualist explanations.
    • Offers a critical counterbalance to other studies.

    🔹 9. Nelson, K. R., et al. (2006)

    Title: Does the arousal system contribute to near-death experience?
    Journal: Neurology, 66(7), 1003–1009
    DOI: 10.1212/01.wnl.0000203258.90676.4c

    • Links NDEs to REM intrusion and temporal lobe activity.
    • Supports materialist models rooted in neurophysiology.

    📚 Bonus: AWARE II (Ongoing)

    • Continuation of the original AWARE study.
    • Incorporates visual and auditory targets, EEG monitoring, and patient interviews.
    • Preliminary findings suggest further cases of veridical perception.
    • Full results pending publication.

  • it is not rational to argue there is no evidence for the afterlife

    dr. jeffrey long wrong a book, ‘evidence of of the afterlife’.  a smart and capable doctor writing a book like that should be sufficient to establish evidence, but i know some peeps are too stubborn to leave it at that. 

    let’s look at some lines of evidence: 

    philosophically, it’s just plain stupid to argue that it’s common for people to hallucinate elaborate afterlife stories when they die. why would this even happen? drugs, dreams, and other hallucations dont cause people to hallucinate elaborate afterlife stories in any other aspect of life… why should we assume there’s something special about dying that causes this? 

    out of body experiences are commonly verified as accurate, to the point of almost always being accurate. doctors and professionals are often some people verifying things that occurred when someone was dead, when what the dead person knew was impossible to know. if ya’ll want a start in researching out of body experiences, ‘evidence for the afterlife’ by doctor jeffrey long does a short literature review of some highlights. there’s lots of studies that look at the accuracy of those experiences and they’re always shown to be accurate. there’s whole scientific journals out there dedicated to this stuff, the evidence is basically too overwhelming to just ignore. even the AWARE study where they tried to measure out of body phenomenon, had two examples where someone who was dead knew what happened out of their body. and there was some measurement of auditory ability when they were dead. now, yes this isn’t the level of evidence that leaves no room for doubt, and this isn’t exactly being able to be measured in a lab on demand…. but this is all evidence that is being measured and can be repeated. it’s basic science.  

    dead family members. when people experience beings on the other side, the beings met are almost always dead and almost always family members. if this was just a random hallucination, there should be many more examples of living people and people other than family members. this consistency is a strong point. 

    there are plenty of examples of blind people seeing when they die, often for the first time ever. the examples who people who are coming to grips with a new sense, it takes time to process and that’s exactly what we see. 

    here is more on the NDEs of blind people

    Click to access vol16-no2-101.pdf

    some other lines of evidence: 

    -another good piece of evidence is that when experiencers are surveyed, they say their ‘life reviews’ are always accurate, 100% of the time. if this was just a brain going hay wire, we’d expect lots of false memories.

    -i think this also goes along with the idea that if this was a brain going hay wire, people would experience lots of random images, like a hallucination or dream. instead, they see lucid clear after life experiences that they have no doubt about and that are more real to them than their earthly lives. 

    -also, people often see images in their life review, that they’ve long forgotten. it’s not as likely just a brain going hay wire if it’s showing the whole life even the forgotten stuff. 

    -it’s also good evidence that the same sorts of NDEs happen to people who have never heard of these experiences, and to children who are too young to know about it either. 

    -it’s also good evidence, that across all cultures, the themes in the experiences happen the same. that is, tunnels, light being, life  reviews and such… all these things happen at the same rate regardless of country or culture. i realize humans are similar, so the argument that we just have similar experiences is possible. but if this just a brain going hay wire, it wouldn’t be so consistent and would be a lot more like random images or random experiences. 

    more on consistency. 

    -almost every person who has these experiences after the exerperience then believes in the afterlife. if these were just hallucaionations, you’d expect this not to so consistent. 

    -it’s also worth noting, that a majority of atheists even come back believing in God… it’s almost never the case that theists end up becoming atheists. the atheists who dont convert, just had no special insight on the matter, the ones who gain knowledge of something end up becoming believers. (this is also a line of evidence for the existence of God)

    -it’s very rare to find a non christian religion NDEs by the way. the experiences are so rare, that i challenge anyone to find just a few of them. the only ones i’ve seen are too open to interpretation to draw too many conclusions from. 

    the skeptic arguments against NDEs being authentic are at best hunches, it lacks specificity in science. there’s no known afterlife gene or something in our brain that we know of that would cause this. yes, we are all similar so maybe our survial gene is facilitating all this. but like i said, it’s all just a big hunch. we have lots of science and scant evidence to support skeptics. there’s simply not enough evidence to be a skeptic about whether there is even evidence to begin with.  this is all evidence, so skeptics have a repubuttable presumption against them and they are bad and providing actual evidence to support their claims. 

    philosophically, if it’s common for people to experience elaborate afterlife stories when they die, that’s prime facie evidence that an afterlife might exist. even if i were to admit that an afterlife isn’t most probable… it’s objectively possible based on that evidence and all the other lines i’ve provided. that’s why it’s objectively irrational to say there’s not even evidence for an afterlife. 

  • evidence of the afterlife

    Check out the book ‘evidence for the afterlife’ by Dr Jeffrey long. It includes, among other things…

    Objective though not fool proof studies on out of body experiences. More than one scientific study has concluded that when out of body experiences occur, they are almost always ‘accurate or at least consistent with reality’. sometimes the description of what happened while the person was dead, couldn’t have been known to them, or at least the things described are consistent with what happened. if someone just guesses what happens out of their body, they are almost always off… it’s actually very hard to guess accurately. there are lots of case studies, like the pam reynolds case, or random examples like seeing a pair of shoes on the window ledge of another room in the hospital. plus, there’s the AWARE study, where one person had auditory experience while dead, and another person had a description of the operation that was consistent with reality. as is often said, all it takes is one black swan to prove that black swans exist.., if anyone is describing something impossible to know, that’s evidence for out of body experiences being accurate, and evidence of the afterlife by extension.

    Evidence of people who were blind seeing for the first time during their experience. They struggle to come to grips with their experience as would a new born.

    Communication on the other side is almost always telepathic. If this was just hallucination, why don’t folks experience verbal and other forms of communication? I dont know how a skeptic could explain this away, i dont know other ways to interpret this.

    Earth beings met on the other side r almost always dead relatives. If this was just hallucination why r not they seeing living relatives or living non relatives or dead non relatives a lot more? i understand there might be something special about family and the associations with the deceased, but this is still more evidence than not evidence. you would think people would be hallucinating someone like taylor swift a lot more.

    On basic philosophy, think about what people are experiencing: coherent and elaborate afterlife stories, that are more real than their earthly lives and they have no doubt about with no fear of death, and the common themes like light beings, life reviews, tunnels, deceased loved ones, God etc. Drugs dreams and other hallucinations don’t cause these elaborate afterlife stories with those common themes anywhere else. Why would dying out of all possibilities cause all this? if evolution or natural selection could explain it, that’d be one thing, but as far as i can tell those dont explain it.

    what we end up with, is evidence so plain as day staring us in the face yet skeptic pretend there’s not even evidence for the afterlife to begin with.