Talk:Near-death experience

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 17 January 2022 and 11 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Scoobydoo2022, The Best Wiki Writter, JACstudent, Finnigan71, Seankingston101, EV0 Abbott (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Candles59, JDJ44, Roxlef, Mylo27, Jbeditor16.

Article is misleading

The article is presenting NDE as "factual" when it is a pseudoscience backed only by anecdotal evidences. Random Taong Grasa (talk) 13:24, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

If subjective experiences have real correlates that can be verified with third parties such as doctors etc ... It stops being subjective. Have a nice day. 85.49.250.171 (talk) 09:37, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

There have been studies by Bruce Greyson which indicate that people experiencing NDEs have met, in their near-death state, relatives which died so recently that they had no possibility of knowing of their death or, even more impressively, relatives which they did not know existed. If anything, this demonstrates that more research must be done on the topic. XiphosS (talk) 12:39, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Where does it ever state as factual? So far according to research conducted by the Missouri Medicine

The Journal of the Missouri State Medical Association 22% of NDE are form patients that are under general anesthesia were localize lucid memories by present scientific understanding should not be taking place? 2607:FB91:1C79:4F7:CC69:EBE6:FD40:2123 (talk) 01:35, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

this is how science works, by gathering self report data. I’m sorry, did you not realize that? 207.161.254.87 (talk) 15:34, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

The phenomenon does exist. What Wikipedia won't say is that NDE would be the door to higher worlds, evidence of life after death, evidence of reincarnation, and so on. tgeorgescu (talk) 10:52, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Article is crap

Article must be crap when the topic is crap. It is all necessarily crap, in the absence of a definition of 'near-death'. Why is it missing? All phenomena described are well-known symptomology of drifting in and out of consciousness. And who's to say a patient apparently unconscious actually is, as conventionally understood? That is, insensate to the world? Why might they not continue to hear and form memories, for example? The focus on cardiac arrest is bizarre. What has cessation of heartbeat to do with anything? Intuitively, it would take some time for loss of consciousness from apoxia to set in. Where do you draw the line between consciousness and lack thereof? The key figure is never mentioned: what proportion of so-called NDE's involved a situation that could reasonably be classified as likely to proceed to death? Well, very, very few, of course, being the obvious reason this is never reported. 'What we have here ... is ... a failure ... (to recognise classic pseudoscientific claptrap, together with a failure) ... to communicate...' 122.151.210.84 (talk) 01:55, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

You should read a little

bit more on NDE’s and some of the claims/ evidence behind them 216.212.19.204 (talk) 01:20, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

The experiences are profound and life-changing, but there is no evidence that the spiritual world, heavens, hell, God, and so on exist. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:12, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

They are subjective experiences yes, but they do not deny that they have some reality in them as it is possible for a person to see what happens around being unconscious? 85.49.250.171 (talk) 09:32, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

You sound like you haven’t bothered to read into this topic at all and represent an angry atheist reaction 207.161.254.87 (talk) 15:33, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Cross-Cultural NDE section

This section was arbitrarily removed in its entirety by MrOllie after I tried to make it more robust. He has called it "fringeish" without any justification. The section is historical and anthropological and has nothing to do with whether or not NDEs are veridical or not. The works cited are all by scholars -- historians of religions with PhDs from prominent universities with works published by Oxford University Press and other academic publishers.

Here's the section (the new material added is in italics):

Historian of religions Gregory Shushan published an analysis of the afterlife beliefs of five ancient civilizations and compared them with historical and contemporary reports of NDEs, and shamanic afterlife "journeys". Shushan found elements that were specific to cultures, but concluded that similarities across time, place, and culture could not be explained by coincidence and that there probably is some form of mutual influence between NDEs and culture and that this influence, in turn, influences individual NDEs. In Shushan's follow-up study on NDEs in indigenous societies, he demonstrated that although NDEs occur around the world regardless of cultural or religious background, their reception varies widely. Many Native American, Polynesian, and Melanesian cultures valorized NDEs and stated outright that they were the source of local knowledge about the afterlife. In contrast, for many Australian, Micronesian, and African societies, NDEs were less relevant to afterlife beliefs, and were sometimes seen as a form of possession.

Others argue that near-death experiences and many of their elements such as vision of beings of light, judgment, the tunnel, or the life review are closely related to religious and spiritual traditions of the West. It was mainly Christian visionaries, Spiritualists, Occultists, and Theosophists of the 19th and 20th century that reported them.

Parnia argues that although the interpretation of NDEs are influenced by religious, social, and cultural backgrounds, the core elements appear to transcend borders and are universal. As evidence, he states that some of these core elements have been reported by children at an age where they should not have been influenced by culture or tradition. Greyson states the central features of NDEs are universal and have been observed throughout history and in different cultures and have not changed over time.''''

Here is my reply to MrOllie after he said my edit "doesn't convey any new information":

"Your comment 'this doesn't convey any new information' shows that you either didn't read carefully or that you don't understand the subject. Of course it conveys new information. It's a brief summary of the conclusions of an entirely different study, that reached entirely new and different conclusions, involving different cultures, from different time periods and of different social scale. The salient point is that NDEs influenced afterlife beliefs in some societies and did not in others -- which is not stated in the previous sentences."

MrOllie replied: "I read carefully, but still think the new source duplicates what we already have... In fact, the whole section is fairly fringey and lacks secondary sourcing."

He then deleted it entirely with no explanation on what he is basing his assessments. He does not explain what makes anthropological and historical work "fringey," and is not correct to say it lacks sourcing. This is a totally baseless and subjective deletion. Without this section, the article is based entirely on a hypothetical Western stereotype. 2600:1700:A790:63B0:D955:12E0:459F:4A9 (talk) 03:53, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

The works cited, by the way are:

Greyson, Bruce (2014). "Chapter 12: Near-Death Experiences". In Cardeña, Etzel; Lynn, Steven Jay; Krippner, Stanley (eds.). Varieties of anomalous experience : examining the scientific evidence (Second ed.). Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association. pp. 333–367.

Parnia, Sam (2014-11-01). "Death and consciousness--an overview of the mental and cognitive experience of death". Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. 1330 (1): 75–93.

Schlieter, Jens (2018-08-06). What Is it Like to Be Dead?: Near-Death Experiences, Christianity, and the Occult. Oxford University Press. p. 91. ISBN 978-0-19-088885-5.

Shushan, Gregory (2009). Conceptions of the Afterlife in Early Civilizations: Universalism, Constructivism, and Near-Death Experience. London: Continuum. ISBN 978-0-8264-4073-0.

Shushan, Gregory (2018). Near-Death Experience-in-Indigenous-Religions. Oxford: Oxford-University-Press. ISBN 978-0197685433.

Note that Schlieter and Shushan are historians, the other two are medical scientists. 2600:1700:A790:63B0:D955:12E0:459F:4A9 (talk) 04:05, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

What we had there was a section that placed an over-emphasis on the opinions of individual academics. could not be explained by coincidence based on one person's opinion is classic fringe writing. This kind of thing is why Wikipedia is supposed to be written based on secondary sources that explain what the mainstream view of a field is. MrOllie (talk) 12:09, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Almost nobody is working on NDEs across cultures and in history, which is why this relatively new scholarly research is important.

The statement "could not be explained by coincidence" is not "one person's opinion". It is not an opinon at all, in fact, and it's actually demonstrated and reasoned in the book. The research for that book was conducted at Oxford University and the book published by Oxford University Press. It was peer-reviewed, as were a number of articles stemming from the book.

In contrast, your statement that it's "fringe writing" is based solely on one person's opinion, and you ahev not substantiated it in any way.

It's one thing if you want to flag as "needs secondary source" or whatever, but to just delete it isn't justified. 2600:1700:A790:63B0:EDA3:4395:BE5F:84A8 (talk) 21:31, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

If 'almost nobody' is working on it, that is a reason to leave the section out, not to compromise Wikipedia's standards. A maintenance tag is only appropriate if there if there is a realistic chance we could find a secondary source, but you're conceding here that we will not. MrOllie (talk) 22:03, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

That's an incredibly specious rationale. The fact that it's a relatively neglected area of research is no reason to censor it. As I said earlier, the cross-cultural existence of NDEs is vital to understanding them, just as it would be to any phenomenon. It's actually ethnocentric to leave them out, and inaccurate to portray the phenomenon as only a Western one.

I can add two summaries from the work of two prominent mainstream sociologists, Allan Kellehear and James McClenon, who earlier had similar findings about NDEs across cultures. For example:

Kellehear, A. (1996) Experiences Near Death: Beyond Medicine and Religion. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.

McClenon, J. (1994) Wondrous Events: Foundations of Religious Belief. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Like the others, all these scholars, by the way, are secular and are not pushing any agenda or ontological interpretation of NDEs. And again, all are published by mainstream academic presses in peer-reviewed monographs. The argument - with much supporting evidence - is simply that different people in different cultures understand NDEs in different ways. In many, they inform beliefs; in others they don't. This is not speculation, but is based on what people in those different societies actually say.

It's also a serious lacuna that the page has no reference to the work of Carol Zaleski, which should be mentioned alongside Schlieter, as both argue that NDEs are purely imaginary and culturally-constructed. This would also balance the perspectives of Kellehear, McClenon and Shushan. But of course you've deleted Schlieter, too....

I'm hesitant to spend any time on this though, because I suspect you'll just delete it. 2600:1700:A790:63B0:C89D:EAB4:54FC:4071 (talk) 03:55, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

See WP:FRIND. If the woowoo doesn't get covered in independent sources, Wikipedia can't cover it. Bon courage (talk) 17:32, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Are you saying that scholarly monographs published by academic publishers like Oxford University Press are not independent sources? And that they're "woowoo" simply because they deal with NDEs? Not a single one of them argues that they are actually evidence for an afterlife. We're talking about how NDEs are culturally and socially interpreted in different socities. Do you think that's "woowoo" and if so, on what grounds exactly 2600:1700:A790:63B0:75AE:A5FC:BBFB:35D4 (talk) 06:12, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

The phenomenon NDe is already completely explained as result of a working memory - where we can perceive as a consious experience how a single stimulus/thought is processed by the brain (step-by-step). Therefore NDEs of persons in different cultures show identical contents and structures - because all human brains are working with the same neuronal structure: the brain. NDEs have nothing to do with death, nor with dying - because the words ´death, dying´ can be used only when this process is performed in reality: this does mean that these persons are dead and a corpse when they had such an experience - and can not tell anything about this experience because death is not reversible.

The imagination/thought ´I will die / I am dead´ is a wrong idea for a person who can think. Because persons who can think are alive! Therefore the start of NDEs can be triggered by such ideas which are seen obviously as wrong/nonsense by outr brain. Then the brain concentrate its activity on the job to process a nonsense-experience for which we have no comparable experience in the memory. Thus we can say: Not the imagination ´I will die / I am dead´ is the trigger to start a NDE: The trigger is, that the brain has to process an experience which is obviously wrong/nonsense.

To process this strange experience - the brain use two strategies: A) this strange experience it compared step-by-step against the contents of the memory - these contents are reactivated when the comparison is performed an can be perceived as a conscious experience as a life-review in hierarchical order in a very high speed. 2) sometimes a virtual simulation of the actual situation is performed - which we know as an Out-of-Body-experience. (When the life-review is perceived in hierarchical ASCENDING order - then it will be started in the 5th month of feoetus-age - in the same order as the physical senses develop: touch > acoustic > optical sense (= tunnel experience) > birth(indirect, light perception change from dim to brilliant) > early social encounter experiences (our parents are recalled as a ´being of light´ from which we get unlimited love and affection) > autobiographical experiences from th 2nd year of childhood up to the actual age. BUT - when a life-review is performed in hierarchical DESCENDING order - then it will start with the actual age and go back only until to the 2nd-4th year of childhood. We can not recall experiences from an earlier age - (= infantile/childhood amnesia) because earlier experiences have no autobiographical code (I-/my- code). ) (This explanation of NDEs is published already since 2006 - and it is embarrassing, that it is ignored up to now in discussions to the topic NDE. ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:F2:5F3C:A812:AD79:B7BB:8F08:15D4 (talk) 14:38, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

A. You are flat-out demonstrably wrong that "NDEs of persons in different cultures show identical contents and structures." That's precisely one of the things this section should be about -- the cultural and historical differences.

B. You're the only one makin ontological statements about NDEs here. This section has nothing to do with that.

C. Not a single scholar I've cited argues that NDEs are actually evidence for an afterlife. This is sociology, cultural anthropology, and history. The conclusions of people writing about cross-cultural NDEs can be used by people on both sides of the argument. They can say they're all in the brain because they're similar; or they can say they're hallucinatory because they're different -- because there are both similarities and cultural uniquenesses. But again, that's not even what the section is about. Did you actually read it, and my proposals for improvement?

Once again, the issue is NOT about whether NDEs are evidence for an afterlife or not. Even if they're just hallucinations, they can still affect beliefs. And because of cultural diversity, they affect beliefs in different ways in different cultures. There's nothing controversial about that. If you think there is, please explain.

This is not about the ontological reality of NDEs, or about whether a person can really "die" and come back to life, or even about life after death. It's about the cultural history of religious beliefs about an afterlife in different parts of the world. Can I say this any more clearly? 2600:1700:A790:63B0:75AE:A5FC:BBFB:35D4 (talk) 06:25, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

yuh 85.92.180.147 (talk) 14:28, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

To A) NDEs in different cultures show identical contents and structures - that´s true. Typical for all NDEs are contents and structures which are already described since 1975 in the book of Dr. Ramond Moody ´Life after Life´. In this book we can read several examples of NDEs.

In my text you can read a complete explanation of NDEs - you can study the explanation model if you are inteested in the topic NDEs. But when you want to discuss the cultural history of this topic - then you have to accept that this new access/explanation to the topic NDE is now part of the history too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:F2:5F3C:A824:7C37:479E:6DEA:754A (talk) 17:36, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

"NDEs in different cultures show identical contents and structures - that´s true."

No, it is not. Nor did Moody say they are. In fact, Moody pointed out that even among the Western NDEs he was aware of, no two have all the exact same elements. Since Moody, a number of scholars in sociology and religious studies have shown how they differ across cultures. Have you read the sources I mentioned that demonstrate this? Kellehear, McClenon, Zaleski, Shushan...and there are more. You're citing a single source from almost 50 years ago, which was not even an academic book to begin with. That book was not the end of the discussion, especially considering that it barely dealt with cross-cultural NDEs at all.

I don't need to re-read your "text," because once again the cross-cultural section has nothing to do with "explaining" NDEs. So what does this even mean?:

"when you want to discuss the cultural history of this topic - then you have to accept that this new access/explanation to the topic NDE is now part of the history too."

It seems totally irrelevant to the question of how NDEs are seen in different cultures, as well as vague. Because of you grammar though, I'm not even sure what you're saying. Are you saying that any discussion of NDEs in different cultures must be predicated on your explanation of the phenomenon? 2600:1700:A790:63B0:8096:E1CE:F7E8:DBA3 (talk) 21:48, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Embracing Moody's fantasies is right out. If we used that, the wackjobs would all quote Wikipedia as confirmation of their beliefs. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:42, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure who that's directed to @Hob Gadling. The previous comment (erroneously) cited Moody to claim that NDEs are "identical" all over the world. I pointed out that this is not the case. There is no scholarly source that says that, anywhere. The claim is based solely on an unsubstantiated supposition, i.e, it's a belief not supported by research.

Though I pointed out that Moody didn't even actually say that to begin with, I would not cite him in a section on research into cross-cultural NDEs. I would cite the sociologists, anthropologists, and historians who have actually specialized in that area of research.

I'm not understanding the resistance to this suggestion. Or why content seems to be controlled more by people who don't understand the subject than by those who do. 2600:1700:A790:63B0:7473:46A4:CCC7:90E4 (talk) 03:39, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I was tired. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:09, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

So where does this leave the section? No one has made a valid or informed argument against it. It's all been either misinformed or simply reactionary. But I don't want to waste my time rewriting it if it's just going to be deleted on some vague a priori philosophical grounds (i.e., that it's "woo"). And then get banned for a 3rd-time reversal. 2600:1700:A790:63B0:7473:46A4:CCC7:90E4 (talk) 21:15, 5 April 2024 (UTC)