Tag: nde

Here’s a summary of the article/book-chapter by Robert G. Mays (with Suzanne B. Mays) titled *“Explaining Near‑Death Experiences: Physical or Non‑Physical Causation?” (2015).

---

Core thesis

Mays & Mays argue that near-death experiences (NDEs) cannot be adequately explained purely by physical causes (brain chemistry, hypoxia, etc.), and instead they propose a “mind-entity” framework: a human being is essentially a non-material mind united with the physical body. In an NDE the mind-entity separates from the body, operates independently, then reunites.

---

Key points

1. Definition and features of NDEs

• They review common NDE features: out-of-body, tunnel, light, life review, meeting deceased, etc.
• They emphasise that many of these features imply a separation of consciousness from the body.

1. Critique of purely physical causation

• The authors note that while hypoxia, drugs, brain trauma, etc. may correlate with NDEs, they don’t fully account for all phenomena (e.g., veridical perceptions, consistency of certain features).
• They argue physicalist models often struggle with cases where consciousness appears during minimal brain-activity or even apparent flat-line states.

1. Mind-Entity Hypothesis

• They posit the “mind-entity” as a non-material aspect of the person that is distinct from the brain but interacts with it.
• During an NDE the mind-entity detaches and has experiences “outside” the body, which explains out-of-body perception and veridical awareness.
• After the event, the mind re-unites with the body/brain.

1. Evidence they present

• They draw on large NDE datasets (e.g., the International Association for Near‐Death Studies registry) to identify “separation” features that appear in very high proportions of cases.
• They review specific case studies showing perceived veridical awareness of events outside the body.
• They argue the consistency across cases of certain core elements suggests more than random brain perturbations.

1. Implications

• If the mind-entity model is correct, it has implications for consciousness studies (the “hard problem”), for ideas of survival after bodily death, and for how we understand life, death, and transformation.
• It also opens a space for integrating spiritual/transformation-oriented perspectives (which you are interested in) rather than reducing everything to neurochemistry.

1. Limitations and caveats

• They acknowledge that the interaction mechanism between mind-entity and brain is not yet well defined scientifically.
• They admit their hypothesis remains controversial and not yet widely accepted in mainstream neuroscience.
• They call for more rigorous data, more detailed case investigation, and careful control of variables.

---

Why it matters for you

Given your interest in near-death experiences, liminality, inner transformation, and the intersection of spirituality with psychology/theology, this work provides:

• A framework that respects the experiential richness of NDEs (rather than reducing them to mere hallucinations).
• A way to tie NDEs into broader themes of transformation: the “self” (mind-entity) separating from the “body”, undergoing radical liminal shift, then reintegrating changed.
• Theological implications: for example, the idea of the soul or consciousness persisting beyond physical structures, which resonates with your interest in Orthodox and Protestant theological synthesis.
• A bridge between empirical research (case studies, data sets) and existential/spiritual meaning (what does this say about identity, life, death, and transformation?).

---

LITERATURE OF ACADEMIC WORK ON WHETHER NDEs FORM FROM OUR WORLD OR BEYOND OUR WORLD

Here are the key studies and data sources that Robert and Suzanne Mays cite and engage with in “Explaining Near-Death Experiences: Physical or Non-Physical Causation?”, along with what each contributes to their argument.

This list will help you trace the empirical backbone of their mind-entity hypothesis, and it’s ideal for integrating empirical evidence for non-physical consciousness.

---

🔹 1. The Van Lommel et al. (2001) Dutch prospective NDE study

Source: The Lancet, 358(9298): 2039–2045.
Why it matters:

• One of the most rigorous prospective hospital studies of cardiac arrest patients.
• Found that 18% of patients revived from cardiac arrest reported an NDE, despite EEG “flatline” (no measurable brain activity).
• Mays highlight it as key evidence that conscious experience can occur independently of measurable brain function.
• Also showed long-term transformational effects: reduced fear of death, greater spirituality, and altruism — supporting the “realness” of the experience.

---

🔹 2. The Greyson NDE Scale and empirical classification

Source: Bruce Greyson (1983), The Near-Death Experience Scale: Construction, Reliability, and Validity, Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease.
Why it matters:

• Provides a standardized way to quantify NDE features.
• Mays rely on this to distinguish true NDEs (scoring ≥7) from partial or unrelated experiences.
• Greyson’s scale provides the empirical foundation for all subsequent statistical analysis of NDEs.
• Mays point out the consistency of features across cultures and demographics — implying a universal structure rather than random hallucinations.

---

🔹 3. The AWARE Study (Parnia et al., 2014)

Source: Sam Parnia et al., Resuscitation, 85(12): 1799–1805.
Why it matters:

• Attempted to verify veridical perceptions (accurate observations during “out-of-body” moments) using hidden targets in hospital rooms.
• Only a few patients survived long enough to report an NDE, but one verified perception corresponded to a real event while the patient was clinically dead.
• Mays regard this as tentative evidence that awareness may persist beyond flat EEG states.
• They recommend improved replication designs.

---

🔹 4. Sabom (1982, 1998) – Medical case studies

Source: Michael Sabom, Recollections of Death: A Medical Investigation (1982); Light and Death (1998).
Why it matters:

• Cardiologist Sabom compared NDE accounts of cardiac patients with their actual resuscitation records.
• Found that those who claimed out-of-body perception often described the resuscitation accurately, whereas control patients who imagined such events did not.
• Mays cite this as a classic veridical perception study supporting the mind-entity’s independent awareness.

---

🔹 5. Kelly et al. (2007) — Irreducible Mind

Source: Edward F. Kelly et al., Irreducible Mind: Toward a Psychology for the 21st Century.
Why it matters:

• Comprehensive review of evidence for non-reductive models of consciousness (including NDEs, mystical states, psi phenomena).
• Mays build upon this tradition, using their “mind-entity” model as an explicit mechanism for how consciousness might operate independent of the brain.

---

🔹 6. Holden, Greyson & James (2009) – The Handbook of Near-Death Experiences

Why it matters:

• The definitive academic compendium summarizing decades of NDE research.
• Mays use its statistical summaries (cross-cultural prevalence, phenomenological commonalities, physiological correlates) to argue that no known physiological factor reliably predicts NDE occurrence or content.

---

🔹 7. Fenwick & Fenwick (1995, 2001)

Sources:

• Peter & Elizabeth Fenwick, The Truth in the Light (1995); The Art of Dying (2001).
  Why it matters:
• British neurologist and neuropsychiatrist couple who documented hundreds of NDEs and deathbed visions.
• Showed patterns of lucidity, peace, and clarity even when the brain is oxygen-starved — challenging conventional neurological models.
• Mays quote Fenwick to argue that the mind may act as an information-field interacting with the brain, consistent with their own interaction model.

---

🔹 8. Morse (1990) – Children’s NDEs

Source: Melvin Morse, Closer to the Light.
Why it matters:

• Shows that even very young children (who lack cultural conditioning) report classic NDE elements.
• Mays emphasize this as evidence against expectation or cultural priming explanations.

---

🔹 9. Ring (1980) and Ring & Valarino (1998)

Sources:

• Kenneth Ring, Life at Death (1980); with Evelyn Valarino, Lessons from the Light (1998).
  Why it matters:
• Introduced the concept of the “core experience” and its transformative aftermath.
• Mays use Ring’s data to show that NDE content and aftereffects remain consistent across decades, implying stability not found in hallucinations or dreams.

---

🔹 10. Sabom, Ring, and Kelly (cross-validation meta-data)

Mays reference meta-analyses combining multiple data sets to estimate that about 15–20% of near-death survivors experience NDEs.
They note the uniformity of narrative motifs across medical conditions, cultural contexts, and ages, suggesting a common process distinct from purely physical causes.

---

🔸 Summary Insight

Across these studies, Mays conclude:

• Physical models (oxygen deprivation, neurotransmitters, REM intrusion, etc.) explain pieces but not the whole.
• Empirical data — particularly cases with veridical perception and persistent consciousness during clinical death — point to the mind as a distinct, organizing entity capable of temporary separation from the brain.
• The model elegantly accounts for consistency, coherence, and long-term transformation while remaining testable through future controlled studies.

---

---

Chapter X: Veridical Perception During Near Death Experiences and the Challenge to Materialism — Dr. Jeffrey Long’s Findings

“In a little over 40 percent of my surveys, NDErs observed things that were geographically far from their physical body, that were way outside of any possible physical sensory awareness. Typically, someone who has an NDE with an out-of-body experience comes back and reports what they saw and heard while floating around—it’s about 98 percent accurate in every way. For example, in one account someone who coded in the operating room had an out-of-body experience where their consciousness traveled to the hospital cafeteria where they saw and heard their family and others talking, completely unaware that they had coded. They were absolutely correct in what they saw.”
— Dr. Jeffrey Long, M.D.

This quote from radiation oncologist and NDE researcher Dr. Jeffrey Long strikes at the heart of one of the most provocative questions in consciousness studies: Can the mind perceive and record information independently of the physical brain?

---

🔎 The Core Claim

Dr. Long’s statement, drawn from thousands of case reports collected via the Near Death Experience Research Foundation (NDERF), outlines three key assertions:

1. Over 40% of NDEs include reports of perception from locations distant from the physical body—i.e., beyond what is accessible to normal senses or awareness.
2. These perceptions are reportedly accurate approximately 98% of the time, based on comparisons with later confirmations.
3. An illustrative case involves a patient who clinically died in the operating room, yet reported accurate details about family members’ conversations in the hospital cafeteria during the event.

If these accounts are taken at face value, they imply that conscious awareness may persist and function independently of the brain—a proposition that directly challenges materialist assumptions in neuroscience, psychology, and philosophy of mind.

---

⚠️ The Caveats: Interpreting with Caution

While the implications of Dr. Long’s data are profound, several critical concerns must be addressed:

• Retrospective Reporting:
  The majority of Dr. Long’s data comes from voluntary, retrospective surveys—meaning individuals submit their accounts after the fact, often without contemporaneous documentation. This opens the door to:
  • Memory distortion
  • Confirmation bias
  • Selective reporting (i.e., more dramatic stories may be overrepresented)
• Verification Questions:
  Many accounts lack independent, third-party corroboration. How was the accuracy of perceptions confirmed? Were there time-stamped witnesses? Were alternative explanations ruled out?
• The 98% Statistic Is Not Peer-Reviewed:
  Although widely quoted, the “98% accuracy” figure does not appear in any peer-reviewed, controlled scientific study. It reflects Dr. Long’s qualitative assessment of cases, not blinded experimental verification.
• No Controlled Timing in Most Reports:
  Without synchronized medical data (e.g., EEG flatlines, clinical timestamps, witness logs), it’s impossible to verify whether the reported perceptions occurred during unconsciousness or after regaining awareness.

---

✅ What It Suggests: The Pattern Is Still Striking

Despite the methodological limitations, Dr. Long’s research holds significant value:

• Massive Database:
  Long has compiled one of the largest collections of NDE accounts in the world, offering a rich source for pattern recognition and hypothesis generation.
• Cross-Cultural Consistency:
  Striking similarities across cultures, languages, age groups, and contexts suggest a phenomenon with some degree of coherence and repeatability.
• Presence of Veridical Cases:
  A subset of cases—like the cafeteria account—includes veridical perceptions, meaning accurate observations that should not be possible under the known limits of brain function. If verified under controlled conditions, these would be very difficult to reconcile with purely brain-based models of consciousness.

---

🧠 A Philosophical Reflection

Dr. Long’s data is extremely compelling as a pattern across thousands of accounts—but not yet conclusive. Without strict controls, time-verified documentation, and third-party corroboration, these remain well-organized and fascinating anecdotes.

However, if even one such case were verified under rigorous, blind, and independently documented conditions, it would represent a paradigm-shifting breakthrough. Such a case would suggest that human consciousness can function in ways that defy the traditional neuroscientific model linking awareness exclusively to brain activity.

---

Conclusion

Dr. Jeffrey Long’s work invites us to take seriously the claims of people who report awareness and perception during clinical unconsciousness. While current evidence lacks the rigor of controlled trials, the consistency and coherence of these reports challenge us to ask deeper questions:

• Are we more than our brains?
• Is consciousness a fundamental property of the universe, not just an emergent property of neurons?
• Can rigorous science be designed to test these claims with the same standards we apply elsewhere?

The answers to these questions may eventually redefine how we understand life, death, and the nature of human identity.

---