Leslie Kean's new Netflix documentary

Unless of course pseudo-skeptical articles and idiotic comments start spreading misinformation about the research into the subjects first, which is a likely outcome of this. Atheists and skeptics are the most vocal of social media users in my experience, so they won't stand for it. I'm predicting outcry from the Skeptical Inquirer, Sean Carroll, Steven Novella, hive-minds on Reddit etc. within at least a few weeks of its release, along with the usual YouTube skeptic community making at least some passing comments. That's what I've come to expect now. The Internet is simply that cynical and negative to me that I can only see my attitude as a realist one rather than pessimistic.

The bottom line, for me anyway, is that one has to do one’s own reading of the research and evidence in order to form a personal view. People whose opinions are not formed this way will be blown hither and thither by the confident and apparently well-informed commentators who have an axe to grind on either side.

Another largely positive review from a YouTuber I used to follow myself:

IIRC this guy is a Christian, so he'll naturally be a bit biased in favour of it, but he does mention how this documentary considers skeptical points and again tries to approach this from a more neutral, non-preachy perspective. But again, the episodes featuring Fenwick, Tucker, Greyson and other academics are seen as the best and the most thought-provoking while the others are a lot weaker. 

It's very encouraging to see those who aren't at all familiar with the subject describe these three (and others) as academic experts and scientific researchers, something pseudo-skeptics refuse to accept. It's a pity the documentary comes off as a bit cheesy at times, but the recreations are decent. 

For the mediumship episode, they discuss the topic of 'spirit casts' of hands/limbs supposed materialised during seances, something I've never really seen discussed before in much detail.

As a quick question, if anyone's interested in watching his review, skip to 4:45. Is that Julie Beischel?

I've just seen the first 'Surviving Death' programme (on Netflix). Everyone will have their own opinions about it, whether or not it was well made or could have been done better. Mine is that I thought it was okay to fairly good with a high quality, sometimes quite spectacular feel to the production. 

I didn't care (personally) for the segment showing a Seattle IANDS meeting in progress with Kimberley Clark Sharp, because I don't like the understandable emotion that arises in these meetings but emotion is certainly going to arise when you've had one of these experiences and I haven't had one (an NDE) so what do I know.  

The opening sequence featuring Dr Mary Neale is quite spectacularly shot. Beautiful scenery from above a raging river in Jackson Hole, which is probably approaching something of the magnitude of the river in Chile where her experience actually occurred. 

There's no doubt she was dead, unless the whole thing is a gigantic hoax, which I suspect even the worst kind of sceptics would find implausible. She has impeccable qualifications to talk about this subject now, not only as an experiencer but as a physician trained in neuroscience (she is a spine surgeon). 

Her book left me with with mixed emotions though, mainly because she headlined the chapters with bible quotes which made little sense to me if you're trying to be taken seriously, as someone with her credentials should be.

Pam Reynolds made an appearance in footage which I haven't seen but they got it wrong (again) by inferring that all of her observations took place when she was actually clinically dead. Some did but not all but we've been through all that before, so I won't start again.   

Bruce Greyson came across very well, very impressive, as did Peter Fenwick. They also used some of Fenwick's 1988 documentary (Glimpses of Death ?). Towards the end Stephanie Arnold's NDE was analysed with her sceptical husband beside her. It was actually a very impressive case which I'd not paid enough attention to because her veridical observations were only retrieved later.

But the female doctor who was mainly responsible for her care was able to verify that what she saw was indeed accurate and there is no way she could have seen it, notwithstanding that she somehow 'saw' her husband at the airport. There's a nice sequence where Greyson is helping her to go through her veridical experience (at his desk). Interestingly, she suffered with the same problems that Pam Reynolds had afterwards, namely that going out was upsetting because she knew what people were thinking (she had access to the thoughts of strangers) and it understandably disturbed her greatly.

There's far too many of these veridical OBE's now to dismiss them. There's absolutely something extraordinary going on, but even as impressive as these cases are, the die hard sceptics are still holding out. For how long, only time will tell.

I've just seen the first 'Surviving Death' programme (on Netflix). Everyone will have their own opinions about it, whether or not it was well made or could have been done better. Mine is that I thought it was okay to fairly good with a high quality, sometimes quite spectacular feel to the production. 

I didn't care (personally) for the segment showing a Seattle IANDS meeting in progress with Kimberley Clark Sharp, because I don't like the understandable emotion that arises in these meetings but emotion is certainly going to arise when you've had one of these experiences and I haven't had one (an NDE) so what do I know.  

The opening sequence featuring Dr Mary Neale is quite spectacularly shot. Beautiful scenery from above a raging river in Jackson Hole, which is probably approaching something of the magnitude of the river in Chile where her experience actually occurred. 

There's no doubt she was dead, unless the whole thing is a gigantic hoax, which I suspect even the worst kind of sceptics would find implausible. She has impeccable qualifications to talk about this subject now, not only as an experiencer but as a physician trained in neuroscience (she is a spine surgeon). 

Her book left me with with mixed emotions though, mainly because she headlined the chapters with bible quotes which made little sense to me if you're trying to be taken seriously, as someone with her credentials should be.

Pam Reynolds made an appearance in footage which I haven't seen but they got it wrong (again) by inferring that all of her observations took place when she was actually clinically dead. Some did but not all but we've been through all that before, so I won't start again.   

Bruce Greyson came across very well, very impressive, as did Peter Fenwick. They also used some of Fenwick's 1988 documentary (Glimpses of Death ?). Towards the end Stephanie Arnold's NDE was analysed with her sceptical husband beside her. It was actually a very impressive case which I'd not paid enough attention to because her veridical observations were only retrieved later.

But the female doctor who was mainly responsible for her care was able to verify that what she saw was indeed accurate and there is no way she could have seen it, notwithstanding that she somehow 'saw' her husband at the airport. There's a nice sequence where Greyson is helping her to go through her veridical experience (at his desk). Interestingly, she suffered with the same problems that Pam Reynolds had afterwards, namely that going out was upsetting because she knew what people were thinking (she had access to the thoughts of strangers) and it understandably disturbed her greatly.

There's far too many of these veridical OBE's now to dismiss them. There's absolutely something extraordinary going on, but even as impressive as these cases are, the die hard sceptics are still holding out. For how long, only time will tell.

It's amazing that I'm able to find a more comprehensive and detailed review on this forum, of the first episode at least, than on IMDB. Already some pseudo-skeptics and obvious militant atheists (and an obvious troll/contrarian/spammer judging by their rating history) have left some very brief 'reviews' that really boggle the mind and gave me the impression they didn't watch the series in full:

Perhaps I raised my own expectations too high, but this felt far too much like tabloid journalism. Interviews felt coached to deliver one liners and spin stories that create an atmosphere of "I want to believe" rather than "could we prove/debunk this?"

Any scientific interest is reduced to pseudoscience in an attempt to prop up the assumptions being made, so all hope is lost if you really want to learn something new or interesting about near death experiences or the possibility of life after death.

Going in with them mindset of 'debunking' these things is just wrong. That's not skepticism. And how are folks like Greyson, who started out as skeptics, basing their conclusions on 'assumptions'? Sounds to me someone wasn't happy with the conclusions drawn by the scientists/doctors involved.

First episode started off with a bit of a balance between experiences being described and couple scientists asking questions. It then quickly turns to a one-sided argument suggesting "this is real we just can't explain it yet." Second episode onwards .. ridiculous BS!

So in other words, you didn't like that the experts on the topic of NDEs have conclusions you don't like. 

Good editing and cinematography, as per usual with a Netflix doc, but just a lot of charlatans and the poor misguided, traumatised people they prey on.

Also, where are the skeptics!?!?

Once again, as predicted, the mediumship stuff is what has put people off from judging the series fully and fairly. No idea how this is exploiting people in the rest of the documentary giving anecdotes and testimony, like Mary Neal. And as other reviewers have said, there is skepticism, but just not people who identify themselves as skeptics. I don't see a problem with that as long as there is enough. My problem with the series was that the skepticism was uneven, hence why the NDE episode was the best one.

Typical Netflix BS. Just a bunch of extras playing people in denial. Mediocre, sad watch.

This one just speaks for itself. 

The issue is that nobody can say they came to watch this completely unbiased. Everyone's reviews will be affected by their own research and beliefs. I know IMDB has had a history of bizarre and bogus reviews that provide no substance, insight, explanation or justification for incredibly low scores but this is just ridiculous. 

One reviewer (who claimed to be a believer) complained that during an interview segment with Tucker where he asks a child about their past lives, and the child says they don't recall them 'that often', that the child/family should have been called out as possibly fraudulent or something. I mean, I guess that's a valid criticism assuming Tucker didn't explore this case further...

The series is flawed but can serve as a spring-board for further research. According to this article, this was the director's intention: 

There are no straight answers, and that’s part of the show’s appeal, according to Stern. “We didn’t go into this series wanting to debunk or prove or disprove,” Stern said. “We went in with a lot of questions, and we hope that people leave asking more.”

I've just seen the first 'Surviving Death' programme (on Netflix). Everyone will have their own opinions about it, whether or not it was well made or could have been done better. Mine is that I thought it was okay to fairly good with a high quality, sometimes quite spectacular feel to the production. 

I didn't care (personally) for the segment showing a Seattle IANDS meeting in progress with Kimberley Clark Sharp, because I don't like the understandable emotion that arises in these meetings but emotion is certainly going to arise when you've had one of these experiences and I haven't had one (an NDE) so what do I know.  

The opening sequence featuring Dr Mary Neale is quite spectacularly shot. Beautiful scenery from above a raging river in Jackson Hole, which is probably approaching something of the magnitude of the river in Chile where her experience actually occurred. 

There's no doubt she was dead, unless the whole thing is a gigantic hoax, which I suspect even the worst kind of sceptics would find implausible. She has impeccable qualifications to talk about this subject now, not only as an experiencer but as a physician trained in neuroscience (she is a spine surgeon). 

Her book left me with with mixed emotions though, mainly because she headlined the chapters with bible quotes which made little sense to me if you're trying to be taken seriously, as someone with her credentials should be.

Pam Reynolds made an appearance in footage which I haven't seen but they got it wrong (again) by inferring that all of her observations took place when she was actually clinically dead. Some did but not all but we've been through all that before, so I won't start again.   

Bruce Greyson came across very well, very impressive, as did Peter Fenwick. They also used some of Fenwick's 1988 documentary (Glimpses of Death ?). Towards the end Stephanie Arnold's NDE was analysed with her sceptical husband beside her. It was actually a very impressive case which I'd not paid enough attention to because her veridical observations were only retrieved later.

But the female doctor who was mainly responsible for her care was able to verify that what she saw was indeed accurate and there is no way she could have seen it, notwithstanding that she somehow 'saw' her husband at the airport. There's a nice sequence where Greyson is helping her to go through her veridical experience (at his desk). Interestingly, she suffered with the same problems that Pam Reynolds had afterwards, namely that going out was upsetting because she knew what people were thinking (she had access to the thoughts of strangers) and it understandably disturbed her greatly.

There's far too many of these veridical OBE's now to dismiss them. There's absolutely something extraordinary going on, but even as impressive as these cases are, the die hard sceptics are still holding out. For how long, only time will tell.

Thanks for the review Tim, will give this a whirl.

I noticed John Cleese had advertised this on his Twitter so I followed the hashtag, and found that somehow this series has been reviewed very scathingly...two days before it was even released. I'm thus highly skeptical of this insanely mean-spirited review:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/surviving-...itter_page

[color=rgba(2, 20, 31, 0.85)]Surviving Death[/color][color=rgba(2, 20, 31, 0.85)] begins by tackling the issue of Near-Death Experiences (NDE) via the story of orthopedic surgeon Mary Neal, who on a 1999 kayaking trip in Chile wound up pinned underwater without oxygen for 30 minutes. During this ordeal, she felt her spirit peel away from her body and travel up to a brilliantly colorful, flowery “heaven” where time and space shifted, and strange beings both embraced her and informed her that her son would die in the near future. Somehow, Neal survived this accident. And since her son did eventually pass away (albeit two years later than she’d been told he would), and many other people convey comparable near-death experiences—defined by “warm hug” light and visits from departed loved ones—we’re led to believe that the afterlife is real.[/color]

Does anyone know if there's any truth to this claim in bold? And is that really the best criticism that one could make?

[color=rgba(2, 20, 31, 0.85)]That individuals testify to having analogous NDEs is similar to the fact that elderly hospice patients often state that they see, and speak to, their deceased relatives. Alas, [/color][color=rgba(2, 20, 31, 0.85)]Surviving Death[/color][color=rgba(2, 20, 31, 0.85)] ignores any non-supernatural explanation for these phenomena—say, that cultural programming inspires like-minded deathbed visions, or that aged men and women whose minds are deteriorating, and who’ve lost everyone they cherish, might naturally retreat into comforting family-reunion fantasies.[/color]

Maybe because those explanations don't hold water? That 'cultural programming' is utter nonsense. And no, these deathbed visions are not always from people who have 'lost everyone they cherish'. What a ridiculous assumption to make. And why do you assume the doctors and scientists involved haven't considered these (they have).

[color=rgba(2, 20, 31, 0.85)][color=rgba(2, 20, 31, 0.85)]“There are things that science can’t test. But it doesn’t mean they don’t happen,” asserts medium-loving Mike Anthony...[/color][/color]

From the clip I saw of him I'd hardly say he's a 'medium-lover'. He expresses skepticism.

[color=rgba(2, 20, 31, 0.85)]Yet just because science can’t explain something doesn’t mean that the answer is automatically supernatural—a notion that goes unaddressed by [/color][color=rgba(2, 20, 31, 0.85)]Surviving Death[/color][color=rgba(2, 20, 31, 0.85)]. A couple of people do express uncertainty about the reliability of mediums and supposed signs from the afterlife (i.e. that a butterfly or hummingbird is their dad). And in doing so, they provide a bit of counterbalancing argumentation. Even then, though, their sentiments are largely disingenuous, since they turn out to be true believers whose doubt was voiced so it could eventually be dispelled.[/color]

They literally address skeptical arguments for NDEs in the first episode and refute them. And so because these people are still convinced by their experiences, he has the gall to accuse them of being disingenuous? What the f*ck is wrong with this guy? They express skepticism, but then you complain that it's not absolute. 

[color=rgba(2, 20, 31, 0.85)]Where are the bitter, angry ghosts who want to vent to those they left behind? More pressing still, where are the spirits who, rather than telling their relatives pat sentiments about love and forgiveness, are eager to report back about what life after death is really like?[/color]

Where is the common sense that the show wouldn't want to report/include that? And there are plenty of claims by mediums about what the afterlife may be like but none can confirm for certainty. Just look them up for Christ's sake. 

[color=rgba(2, 20, 31, 0.85)]And there’s also one woman’s extended tall tale about foreseeing her death at the moment of her child’s birth (which almost took place; she was briefly in a medically-induced coma) without any confrontation of what it would mean for the future to be discernible—namely, that our paths are irreversibly set in stone, and thus that we have no free will, and that a higher power with a divine plan governs everything and everyone.[/color]

Lol what the f*ck kind of conclusion is that to draw. This doesn't at all imply we all have no free will and that there's a higher power unless that's specifically stated in the show from the woman. The mental gymnastics here is insane. 

[color=rgba(2, 20, 31, 0.85)]...in late passages about children who claim to be reincarnated souls, the show doesn’t cast a single sideways glance at the adults and kids making these assertions. [/color]

Because they bring on child psychiatrist Jim Tucker to give his take. And they aren't assertions if they're verified. Tucker literally goes over at least one verified case. 

I can't believe this immature, hypocritical, insensitive rant was published. This is disgusting.

Omni did you even watch the series yet?

Omni did you even watch the series yet?

Unfortunately I haven't been able to view most of it yet. I've seen quite a few clips though, and explanations of certain scenes and cases in multiple episodes from social medias of those involved. I'll need to judge it for myself obviously, but I'm already disappointed to see people on Twitter and in these horrible articles being so dismissive because mediums are involved. It shouldn't invalidate the rest of the series.

Unfortunately I haven't been able to view most of it yet. I've seen quite a few clips though, and explanations of certain scenes and cases in multiple episodes from social medias of those involved. I'll need to judge it for myself obviously, but I'm already disappointed to see people on Twitter and in these horrible articles being so dismissive because mediums are involved. It shouldn't invalidate the rest of the series.

Maybe just watch the documentary and move on.

Not much point in crying over reviews when we don't know the internal view numbers though my guess is at least a few million over 6 months.

Maybe just watch the documentary and move on.

Not much point in crying over reviews when we don't know the internal view numbers though my guess is at least a few million over 6 months.

It's just such a shame to me that some people will, wrongly, dismiss the academics like the UVA for having their two most notable members in this documentary because a medium channeling a little boy sounded/looked silly. 

It's going to be difficult for me to just move on when these people are mocking, ridiculing or shaming my beliefs and people I look up to, knowing that a documentary featuring some I have even spoken to may have their reputations unfairly weakened because some people can't be bothered to do any further research.