(2023-06-27, 02:22 PM)Ninshub Wrote: FWIW, here it is. It starts the conclusion of the chapter.
Quote:In an email exchange with Bruce Greyson and me regarding the contemporary of of AVP research (my note: AVP = apparently nonphysical veridical perception), eminent NDE researcher Kenneth Ring said:Janice Miner Holden, Bruce Greyson & Debbie James, eds., The Handbook or Near-Death Experiences (2009), Santa Barbara: CA, Praeger Publishers, p. 210.
Quote:There is so much anecdotal evidence that suggests (experiencers) can, at least sometime, perceive veridically during their NDEs...but isn't it true that in all this time, there hasn't been a single case of a veridical perception reported by an NDEr under controlled conditions? I mean, thirty years later, it's still a null class (as far as I know). Yes, excuses, excuses - I know. But, really, wouldn't you have suspected more than a few such cases at least by now?...
My (tongue-in-cheek) interpretation: The NDE is governed by The Trickster who wants to tease us, but never give us the straight dope, so people are left to twist in the wind of ambiguity, and meanwhile the search for the elusive white crow in the laboratory...continues to frustrate researchers and gives ammunition to the skeptics. Maybe Raymond (Moody) is right about there being an imp in the parapsychological closet, and with a sense of humor, too. (personal communication, September 7, 2006)
The first paragraph does indeed state that controlled studies do consistently show veridical perception in NDEs to be a false claim. The second paragraph does nothing to refute that claim. So there's that.
Regarding the claim of a meta analysis of studies verifying mediums, I would need to look into that further. That paper appears not to have been published under normal journal review safeguards. If a paper passes legitimate peer review, non-experts can assume this paper has at least some validity in the field. I don't think we get that assurance in articles in Explore. There are many ways a meta analysis can go wrong. That doesn't necessarily mean this study is wrong. I would want expert confirmation before trusting something there.