Validity of NDERF accounts

I think its a matter of choosing the right tool for the job. NDERF and 'The  Self Does Not Die' are addressing different though overlapping topics.

The latter, the collection of seriously investigated cases and related discussion is very much in the area of progressing the boundaries of scientific knowledge. The former, only a tiny proportion of cases have any additional context, usually they are simply a self-contained account which stands or falls purely on the basis of whether or not it is interesting.

Interesting to whom? That is the question. From time to time I visit NDERF (and related sites such as OBERF) simply to randomly sample whatever I find there. Sometimes there are accounts from other countries, around the world, it may give a different window on phenomena. Whatever it is, I'm not looking there for proof of anything. I do look for patterns, repeating themes and echoing ideas. Sometimes, if I'm lucky, I will chance on something which is spiritually uplifting, there are sometimes insights into existence which can only be evaluated by its taste, much as one might test some unknown fruit or plant - is it edible? Is it nutritious? Or bland, maybe even toxic. Of course the definition of what is toxic may have varying meaning for each of us.

The question of fiction - usually these tend to be somehow incapable of inspiring, not even thought-provoking. I don't mean minor NDEs with little detail, those seem acceptable. But the ones with a lot of detail and very little feeling of weight, like a tv commercial, it passes by.

Sometimes, if I'm lucky, I will chance on something which is spiritually uplifting, there are sometimes insights into existence which can only be evaluated by its taste, much as one might test some unknown fruit or plant - is it edible? Is it nutritious? Or bland, maybe even toxic. Of course the definition of what is toxic may have varying meaning for each of us.

The question of fiction - usually these tend to be somehow incapable of inspiring, not even thought-provoking. I don't mean minor NDEs with little detail, those seem acceptable. But the ones with a lot of detail and very little feeling of weight, like a tv commercial, it passes by.

I occasionally - and randomly - visit NDERF/OBERF for the same reason :-) - it can be quite uplifting to read stories from the horses mouth, without editing or opinion, that chime with ones self.

TSDND, obviously isn't live, and I found important details from cases are missing, and discussion of cases by the authors doesn't challenge their own ideas. I found it too biased, presenting edited experiences, and opinions, that support the authors own beliefs.

Though I added a 'like' for the previous post, clearly there is some agreement on the the first part which I appreciate, I don't have the same view of the book 'The  Self Does Not Die'. Opinions are accepted and we don't all have to arrive at the same conclusions, fair enough. But there is a risk of throwing out the baby with the bathwater, I think. In such a still-controversial area of study, one does not expect to go from zero to fully-completed science in a single step. But that should not be a reason for not taking any step at all.