(2023-12-08, 10:49 PM)tim Wrote: [ -> ]Graeme O'Connor is a children's doctor (paediatrician of course) at Great Ormond Street hospital, in London. More than a decade and a half ago, during a night out (trying to forget about his anxiety issues/various problems), he had an unusual NDE when his heart stopped in a nightclub/bar, due to an error in mixing alcohol with special K (Ketamine I think it was likely to be but not sure).
I've listened to this video several times, I found it both down-to-earth and straightforward as well as containing some uplifting spiritual insights.
The research into children's NDEs is promising in one major respect: children are far more likely to survive cardiac arrest and be in relatively good health afterwards (depending on what other medical complications there may be). That increases the numbers of experiences possibly able to be studied. But there are many difficulties: being a child of any age can be an extremely vulnerable part of life and adults don't always know best how to do what is right. Difficult territory.
Edit: I mentioned I'd
listened to the video - my usual habit is to have the sound on while I'm doing something else such as cooking or eating. Now I've got round to watching it I paid more attention to his comments on 'orb actions' (at about 16 minutes).
Sorry, my opinion is that it's nonsense. Just ordinary photographic artefacts caused by dust or fluff or a tiny insect drifting by. Whenever I look at a photo or video showing these effects, I ask the question: where is the light source? Light is the key factor. In this case there seems to be a candle, but is that the only place where light is coming from? It looks to me as though there is a ceiling light, probably a very nearby and intense source of light illuminating the table. Anything passing through that beam of light could be rendered highly visible. The wide-angle lens of the phone camera gives immense depth of field so the artefact which would usually be too blurry to see, is a just-out-of-focus tiny something, passing just in front of the lens.
Sorry, I just get irritated by this stuff, it is misleading people, maybe not wilfully but certainly with too much emphasis placed on the mundane and trivial. A speck of dust - oh, look it's my deceased friend - no it isn't.
What I try to say to people, to let them down more gently is that people may see pictures in the fire or images in a cloud formation, it's fine, there can possibly be some significance. So in that sense, an artefact on an image might convey something. But these blobs are just too plentiful, it's as if every time we see a cloud or a naked flame we start claiming it's the dead come back to visit us. What I'm saying, I think is that it devalues and distracts attention away from the more unusual and striking phenomena, the things which keep us pondering for years.
On the other hand, a little later he talks about seeing an apparition of a man - he described his appearance, top hat on, 6-foot tall, blond hair etc. Now that
is interesting. That's what I mean about not getting distracted by trivia, there are significant things which deserve attention such as this apparition.