NDE Text Resources Thread

And also courtesy of the SPR Facebook page - here's an article about NDEs by Christian Jarrett at Science Focus ("the home of BBC Science Focus magazine") entitled "To death and back: what near-death experiences could tell us about dying":
https://www.sciencefocus.com/the-human-b...out-dying/

It spends a lot of time discussing the claimed similarity between NDEs and psychedelic trips, though it does also include some criticism of the idea.

Courtesy of the SPR Facebook page - here's a short Question and Answer session with Gregory Shushan on the website "Punk Rock and UFOs" (though not much of it is directly about NDEs):
https://www.punkrockandufos.com/blog/202...ccurrences

I thought this paper from Stephen Laureys' coma group was interesting. I've never before seen them 'address' or give any credence (whatsoever) to the veridical out of body experiences reported during OBE's (They have of course noted them during their work but always linked them to brain pathology).

  "So far, it is uncertain whether experiencers have an explicit awareness of the contents of consciousness when experiencing the NDEs (i.e., meta-consciousness). It is also unclear whether some external or real-life-based stimuli may still trigger or be incorporated in the NDE itself, and hence indicating connectedness (Table 1). Although many anecdotes have been reported [36,37], no empirical study has confirmed that NDEs include some real external events. Among the most rigorous studies, Parnia and colleagues [38] stated that one of their experiencers reported afterwards some elements from the environment experienced during cardiopulmonary resuscitation, which were subsequently corroborated by the medical records.

However, their protocol did not allow to exclude that the reported memories were based on retrospective imaginative (re)constructions built up from memories, prior knowledge, and/or expectations about the world. Based on current empirical research, it is difficult to draw any conclusions regarding the accuracy of such descriptions. We need more refined methodologies to objectively examine the validity of specific reports associated with actual (real-life-based) events in NDEs."

This may not seem like much of a movement but in Belgium, they have some of the most vociferous hard-line sceptics in the world who are watching this group of researchers very closely. Presumably that is why they have deliberately omitted the important feature of Parnia's Mr A (from the Aware study), namely the patient's memory of hearing the automated defibrillator, which is actually impossible. 

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar...1319303122

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/article...hind-NDEs?

"Expectation surely plays a part in the overall NDE; the differences between cultures mentioned above are testament to that. But expectation seems to play an even deeper role.

Interestingly, NDEs sometimes occur in people who were, in reality, nowhere near death, they just thought they were. One study that included 58 patients’ experiences of NDEs found that 30 were not, in fact, close to dying."

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/article...hind-NDEs?

"Expectation surely plays a part in the overall NDE; the differences between cultures mentioned above are testament to that. But expectation seems to play an even deeper role.

Interestingly, NDEs sometimes occur in people who were, in reality, nowhere near death, they just thought they were. One study that included 58 patients’ experiences of NDEs found that 30 were not, in fact, close to dying."

The important thing to remember is that the prospective studies of NDE's have all focussed on cardiac arrest patients. Expectation doesn't come into it. Patient's who's hearts suddenly stop, don't have time to start inventing scenarios about what might happen to them when they die. Atheists with no expectation of anything have had life changing NDE's.

The differing cultural aspects of the reports don't trouble me either. Sceptics like to make a big deal out of this, insinuating that because the reports have differences, that means that they can't be real or rather they must be confabulations. There are varying ideas as to why they are different but what we can do is leave those cultural aspects to one side and concentrate on the veridical aspects of the experience (out of body reports).

I'm personally satisfied (based on the evidence) that veridical information gained during cardiac arrests is attributable to patients leaving their bodies. However, it hasn't been established to a sufficient level to change mainstream science yet. That's what Parnia is attempting to do. 

The article is quite poor really, in that it's just repeating worn out old hypotheses that have never been proven. I don't think that materialist science has got anything left to chuck at the experience, to be honest. So we're stuck until the 'ghost' of one of Parnia's patients decides to inspect what is on the top of a metal pole in the room.

Interesting article on...

Hellish NDEs

Interesting article on...

Hellish NDEs

Yes, I tend to agree with him, to some extent, but then the woman (with the extraordinary name) is still partially right. As I said, I prefer not to dwell on it too much because you can't win (if you get my drift)

EDIT: my internet connection keeps going down (with ever greater regularity), Stan so I won't be able to respond.

Yes, I tend to agree with him, to some extent, but then the woman (with the extraordinary name) is still partially right. As I said, I prefer not to dwell on it too much because you can't win (if you get my drift)

EDIT: my internet connection keeps going down (with ever greater regularity), Stan so I won't be able to respond.

I think David has shown that she really isn’t. 
He has shown that they are underreported. It’s natural, jeez, if people are hesitant to talk about ‘nice’ NDEs, then they’d be far more hesitant to talk about hellish ones. Ones that automatically are assumed to put them in a bad light. Don’t you see that you might add to that hesitancy by preferring not to talk about them and preferring me not to post them? (I know no one is stopping me, but it seems rather obvious that you’re not keen on them)

I think that an example of this is Eben Alexander. His NDE articles often totally ignore the ‘worms eye view’ part and move rather quickly to the nice bits. Why? If we’re to investigate NDEs properly, then we can’t pick and choose what we like and pretend hellish ones/bits don’t exist? 

I don’t get your drift actually. Why ‘can’t you win’? I’m mostly on the losing side, after a while it’s not so bad! 

I think David has shown that she really isn’t. 
He has shown that they are underreported. It’s natural, jeez, if people are hesitant to talk about ‘nice’ NDEs, then they’d be far more hesitant to talk about hellish ones. Ones that automatically are assumed to put them in a bad light. Don’t you see that you might add to that hesitancy by preferring not to talk about them and preferring me not to post them? (I know no one is stopping me, but it seems rather obvious that you’re not keen on them)

I think that an example of this is Eben Alexander. His NDE articles often totally ignore the ‘worms eye view’ part and move rather quickly to the nice bits. Why? If we’re to investigate NDEs properly, then we can’t pick and choose what we like and pretend hellish ones/bits don’t exist? 

I don’t get your drift actually. Why ‘can’t you win’? I’m mostly on the losing side, after a while it’s not so bad! 

Stan said > "I think David has shown that she really isn’t."

Maybe but I'd prefer to wait for more persuasive data before drawing any conclusions about that.

Stan said >"It’s natural, jeez, if people are hesitant to talk about ‘nice’ NDEs, then they’d be far more hesitant to talk about hellish ones. Ones that automatically are assumed to put them in a bad light. Don’t you see that you might add to that hesitancy by preferring not to talk about them and preferring me not to post them?

Well, firstly Stan, there aren't that many hellish NDE's on line (for me to post anyway even if I could get permission to do so) and the people that have them are of course hesitant to talk about it.

Secondly, there's the problem of authenticity. If I'm going to post an NDE, I need to know it's not been made up by someone with a prior agenda to try to influence people. I'm referring here to the reports that seem to be favoured by bible thumpers. They sure do believe in hell, god damn it. (no disrespect to sincere Religious people though) 

But I'm not just going to take someone's word that they've died and been to hell (and back) just because they say so (on line), when they can't even provide documentation of their medical crisis, even if the caption does have a guy with horns on his head. 

The only negative NDE's in a prospective study were the two(?) found by Penny Sartori. One of those was so horrific for the person, she wouldn't even talk about it and broke down in tears of anguish. The second I think, was a woman who was frightened of water and seemed to find a vision of woman in a boat (on a lake), scary. 

I'm not saying that all the people who have hellish NDE's have made them up of course. I think there is a place describable as hell but the people who've really had them are probably (as you've alluded to) not the one's going on about it. 

Stan said >"His (Eben Alexander) NDE articles often totally ignore the ‘worms eye view’ part and move rather quickly to the nice bits. Why?

Firstly I don't think the earth worm's eye view was hell.  And a lot of the articles about his NDE don't ignore it but surely the point of publishing/writing up/and reading NDE's is to try present/find something uplifting rather than depressing? The vast majority of NDE's are positive. Sadly not all of them it seems.

But how could I possibly appear non judgemental (as one must be) if I kept shoving negative NDE's down people's throats ? I would certainly appear judgemental. What else could be deduced from it ? It would be judgemental and self righteous, to boot.  

Do you think you'll experience hell, Stan ? If not, what is the criteria for staying out ? And how can we have a meaningful discussion about something which is so hard to quantify and is beyond our control. (Nice people have also seen hell)

What can we really say about it, without appearing to be holier than thou ? What's the formula for salvation ? Does god only love saints, or does he secretly admire those  with a bit of the devil in them (rogues)? Where's the cut off point ? We all have our own ideas, of course.   

They are issues that may have a place, but not to attract people to a forum, I'm afraid. You may disagree, of course.

but surely the point of publishing/writing up/and reading NDE's is to try present/find something uplifting rather than depressing?

Definitely not, that’s how truth gets distorted. Reporting things honestly is more important than anything else imo. 

But how could I possibly appear non judgemental (as one must be) if I kept shoving negative NDE's down people's throats ? I would certainly appear judgemental. What else could be deduced from it ? It would be judgemental and self righteous, to boot.  

I don’t agree at all. 

Reporting hellish NDEs doesn’t make the reporter anything. They’re just reporting things of interest, they’re definitely not there to paint over a picture which might not be to their liking. As I said, I think honesty is vital. 

You seem to think I post a skewed number of hellish NDEs. I never even thought about that until you made me consider the possibility. I post lots of NDEs, I would be surprised if I post a number biased towards scary ones. However I don’t shirk from posting them. I would be more inclined to post a ‘nice’ one rather than a hellish one on my Facebook page, as any readers there are more likely to be NDE virgins than members here.

In fact I think there will be a good reason for people having their scary NDEs, no one has ever come back from such an experience physically injured, as far as I know. 

Do you think you'll experience hell, Stan ? If not, what is the criteria for staying out ? And how can we have a meaningful discussion about something which is so hard to quantify and is beyond our control. (Nice people have also seen hell)

I’ve no idea Tim. All I can do is make my choices and hope they’re ones that keep me in the good books.

How can we have a meaningful discussion about NDEs in general if being ‘hard to quantify and is beyond our control’ is a filter? I don’t think ignoring hellish reports is the way. Perhaps ‘nice people’ aren’t in fact that nice, or they are being taught some kind of an important lesson, who knows? As I said, those that do report hellish NDEs have survived them. 

They are issues that may have a place, but not to attract people to a forum, I'm afraid.

Attracting people to the forum is one thing, being honest with them once they’re here is another.