Talk:Out-of-body experience/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Caption missing

There is no photo caption for the primary illustration on this article. The "clip art" without explanation makes it look like an article from an ad-supported New Age magazine, not an encyclopedia. 207.238.52.162 (talk) 20:27, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Re Swedenborg, Balzac and the Census of Hallucinations

Swedenborg and Balzac may well have written about, or even experienced, OBEs, but in that case references should be given and the relevance of their discussions/personal accounts shown.

The Census of Hallucinations was a survey, not of OBEs, but of hallucinatory/apparitional experiences in general.Ranger2006 (talk) 20:59, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Van Lommel et al.

The current text concerning Shermer, Chopra and Ingram is pretty vague. I cannot understand by reading this text what Shermer's interpretation really is (only the conclusion is given here), and what Chopra's criticism is. As it is, the text seems nothing more than a reference to somewhere else on the web. I also don't understand why Ingram's opinion is of any importance here. HanSue (talk) 17:00, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The criticisms are useful for flagging controversy and suggesting that conclusions should not be jumped to without further investigation (and you aren't, bravo!)

Shermer's interpretation was denial. The study measured objective flatline brain data, but Shermer disregarded this and went with his own beliefs instead, saying that "in reality" the experiences must have been produced by the brain (and therefore the study was somehow a death knell for the mind body split). Van Lommel felt a high profile misrepresentation of findings had taken place and defended it in this link. http://www.nderf.org/vonlommel_skeptic_response.htm

78.146.195.185 (talk) 11:48, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that this last paragraph is very poorly conveyed. One vague sentence fragment is given to Shermer's interpretation of the experiment, almost as if this is assumed to be common knowledge, and then several sentences are given to criticisms of this viewpoint. It is also not clear how this is relevant to the findings of the scientific research. The paragraph should be rewritten or removed. CHF (talk) 01:16, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I believe it - I experience it - but I don't expect anybody to believe me. Some things can only be proved by personal experience.

"Evidence needs to be evidence - not just claims. Cheers - Chas zzz brown 01:04 Jan 24, 2003 (UTC)"

- - - - - - -

Exactly. How can you tell if they were just dreaming ? Or hallucinating ? Or lying ? How can they tell if they were just dreaming ?

Unless you have had an OOBE or NDE yourself, how can you tell if the person reporting it to you also sees fairies and flying saucers ? And don't quite a few people convincingly report these things also ?

"See this video" of Joseph McMoneagle - oh yes ? - it looks like a news report, but was actually produced by an organisation that keenly wants to promote belief in the supernatural. Very profitable. Exactly like the clever stage illusionists such as Uri Geller who supernaturally "see" things they apparently can't physically see. Nothing new. And we've also seen on TV the Statue of Liberty being made to disappear. We've seen the so-called "psychics" doing their cold readings, as well as the shows that show you how it's all done.

There are also many cases of well respected scientists faking their "evidence" because they wanted to prove what they had already decided to believe.

Once as I was walking down the street, I kicked upward and surfed along on thin air for several yards a few inches above the ground, kicked and surfed again and again, flying along as if on an invisible skateboard - I very clearly remember actually doing so, it was a beautiful experience - but I subsequently concluded it was a dream. (Or maybe a vision - but definitely with a deep personal meaning for me.)

And yes, apart from that, I have had a very powerful OOBE myself, which I know was completely real.

Nevertheless, all this anecdotal "evidence" (even mine) is still nothing but unverifiable anecdotes. There is no convincing repeatable experiment that has been done. But these fascinating stories will continue to overly impress the gullible.

If an apparent OOBE can be reproduced by drugs or electrical stimulation, that doesn't prove it's the same experience that happens without  !

There is nothing but subjective data on OOBEs - and there never will be. No matter how many electrodes are currently attached to the brain, the only actual "evidence" of what happened to the subject's consciousness is their own personal account.

This will remain the case until future technology reaches the stage of "The Matrix", whereby what is seen by one subject can be seen and recorded and experienced by another person. Of course, this may be sooner than we expect ...

OK then, hands up any volunteers for having a hole drilled in the back of your head and an electrical socket inserted ?

Hey - where's everybody gone ?

Darkman101 (talk) 00:43, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Information must be verifiable; please see WP:Verifiability and WP:Reliable sources for more information. If information cannot be verified, then it cannot be published even if it's true. If somebody has an out-of-body experience and gets interviewed by the mainstream media, then maybe his experience can be published. Thanks Kayau Voting IS evil 11:09, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

By the way, if all the mainstream media and reliable sources agree on something that is untrue, then we publish the wrong facts. Kayau Voting IS evil 11:10, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Scientific evidence here: https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=104397005 A woman with a brain stem aneurysm was placed in a medically induced coma. Heart stopped and blood drained. Blind folded and over the ear speakers placed so electrical activity in the brain could be monitored. No brain activity, but she reported and doctors verified she heard and saw the operation from a point above the table. Also described here: http://www.near-death.com/experiences/evidence01.html

A man dead for three days wakes up when he was being cut for an autopsy. http://www.near-death.com/experiences/evidence10.html The man was an atheist before the event and became a minister as a result of his experience.

There are similar reports of other people with no pulse or brain activity reporting the same and doctors verifying it, here: http://www.nderf.org/NDERF/NDE_Archives/NDERF_NDEs.htm There are hundreds of reports on this site.

There is little support in the medical community for this type of study. If you read the accounts in the NDERF site a large number are the direct result of medical malpractice. If the doctors, nurses or hospitals admitted OOBE's are real, they would be admitting guilt for malpractice in many cases. Some of the NDE reports even state that the doctors became alarmed when confronted by the patient telling them they knew they had died on the table. Google search "nderf.org allergic to penicillin" https://www.google.com/search?q=nderf.org+allergic+to+penicillin&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a show many accounts of carelessness on this issue alone.

These OOBE's also contradict orthodox religious teachings. Many attempted suicides reported being given a second chance, homosexuals were not condemned by God for being so. http://near-death.com/experiences/suicide06.html The description of the paradise the NDE's went to matches exactly the description of Old Testament paradise, but many mainline Protestantism teaches that paradise was done away with after Jesus resurrection, http://www.barr-family.com/godsword/clarification-heaven-paradise.htm

In this one a woman who was not Catholic reported being ushered in by a priest who was told twice to take her back. http://www.nderf.org/NDERF/NDE_Experiences/lynn_r_possible_nde.htm In Heaven a priest would not make a mistake like that.

This man was blown off a barge on the Mekong River and reported running in and out of a off-base bar before coming back. http://www.nderf.org/NDERF/NDE_Experiences/richard_r_nde_4332.htm No Christian theology I know of has a bar in Heaven.

The only universal attribute of all the OOBE NDE's was that anyone who went to the light did not want to return. Some reported they agreed to for the sake of family or because they had unfinished business in life, but many reported cursing and fighting NOT to be sent back. 108.132.223.160 (talk) 02:38, 12 September 2012 (UTC)David

Exploding head syndrome

The article on the Exploding head syndrome mentions that over 80% of the OBEs are reported to start with an exploding head syndrome sensation and links to this article here. I think such a relevant information should be mentioned in the article, and link back to the Exploding head syndrome. -- 178.0.129.74 (talk) 16:40, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll take a look at it. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:29, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks for catching that. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:43, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Classic Illustrations

From time to time I look at the main image for this article and contemplate replacing it with one of the classic H.G. Watts illustrations from Sylvan Muldoon's magnum opus, this one being the obvious swap.

As far as copyright details go, the first (1929) edition was published by Rider & Co London, without a copyright notice. The edition I have to hand states "This edition (c) Paul Brunton 1968", but by 1968, "this" was referring to the fourth edition, not first. Safe to upload or not? K2709 (talk) 21:01, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Same illustration appears twice

Same illustration appears twice in this article:(Doubles2x.jpg), is it too much?. Also, without caption.--Palapa (talk) 08:56, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

body swap illusion

The topic ´body swap illusion´ should be included into the text. Experiments under scientific control show, that the body can swap into other object, e.g. a doll (Google > Being Barbie: The Size of One´s own Body Determines the perceived Size of the World) (Google > How we Come to Know Our Body as our Own). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.249.234.246 (talk) 08:45, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

lucid dreaming

During lucid dreams some people are able to separate from their body and to float away. Similar like it is reported with OBEs. The movement can be controlled by the mind. This topic should be add to the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.249.237.233 (talk) 16:37, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

This technique belongs to the WILD techniques, wake-initiated lucid dreaming. -- 77.64.188.96 (talk) 10:41, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Theories

There seems to be a theory of hyperspace opposed to the psychological and subtle body theories. Is it worth mentioning? Of course other sources will be needed. Link GreenUniverse (talk) 00:54, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Possibly as part of a theoretical physics section. It's reminiscent of Michael Talbot's 'Holographic Universe' consideration of OBEs through the lens of David Bohm's implicate and explicate order theory. Anthony Peake covers Bohm too, and also examines the explicative power of some fairly mainstream quantum mechanical models such as the many-worlds interpretation. The increasingly popular universe-as-virtual-reality idea has received some OBE-related attention too, through the Monroe Institute's physicist connection Tom Campbell, see this random link. K2709 (talk) 21:01, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

These are some interesting ideas, but this would need an expert on the subject. I am afraid I do not understand this hyperspace theory fully, my area that I know about is mostly the psychological theory or subtle body. Anthony Peake has some complex ideas (I have asked him about them) but not recieved any response yet. If some more sources are gathered then perhaps a third section could be added. Regarding this hyperspace/dimension theory if you look at the paper of Greene, I still do not fully understand it. Is this dimension existing in the subjects mind - or are these dimensions actually in the objective world ie external from the subject? GreenUniverse (talk) 05:59, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

The rough idea behind the Greene paper is that OBEs are compatible with perceptions of a genuinely existing higher dimensional multiverse, but lacking familiarity with such topology we interpret them in terms of lower dimensional experiences. Instead of acknowledging that we had 100% holographic visual experience of a room, we assume in our recollections that we must just have been floating in the top corner of it, as that would give the most comprehensive low dimensional view of it and so on, a la Flatland. Relatedly, experience of 360 degree vision in OBEs isn't unusual. Robert Bruce talks about this a bit, mentioning that this can lead to left/right reversal confusions in the unwary. K2709 (talk) 20:25, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the information, I might order the book by Talbot, in a couple of weeks I might add a section about some of these ideas but first I need to gather some reliable sources. Cheers. GreenUniverse (talk) 06:27, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Article improvement

I am going to attempt to makes some improvements to this article, and as needed, discussed them here.

Removed: "End-of-OBE perceptions"

I removed this section because most of it was a straight copy paste from another source, in violation of copyright. The first part (in red) seems to have come from here. I'm not sure about the last three sentences. In any case, none of it is attributed to any sources.

Removed content - copypasta in red

The OBE may or may not be followed by other experiences which are self-reported as being "as real" as the OBE feeling; alternatively, the subject may fade into a state self-reported as dreaming, or they may awake completely. The OBE is sometimes ended due to a fearful feeling of getting "too far away" from the body. Many end with a feeling of suddenly "popping" or "snapping" and sometimes a "pulling" back into their bodies; some even report being "sucked back" into physical form. A majority describe the end of the experience by saying "then I woke up". However, some report returning the physical body and senses consciously. Transitioning from the "dream body" in an OBE back to the physical body has been compared to using a camera to slowly unfocus on a distant object (the dream or OBE body) while refocusing on a much closer one (the physical body). The distant object blurs out at first and eventually disappears completely as the new object comes into focus.

— MrX 13:41, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Removed: "Van Lommel studies"

I removed the Van Lommel studies content, which is a study of Near Death Experiences, not a study of Out of Body Experiences. Although there may be some commonality, they are not the same thing.

Also, one of the two citations is from a dubious source (skepticalinvestigations.org).

removed content about NDE studies

The first clinical study of near-death experiences (NDE's) in cardiac arrest patients was by Pim van Lommel, a cardiologist from the Netherlands, and his team (The Lancet, 2001). Of 344 patients who were successfully resuscitated after suffering cardiac arrest, approximately 18% experienced "classic" NDE's, which included out-of-body experiences. The patients remembered details of their conditions during their cardiac arrest despite being clinically dead with flatlined brain stem activity. Van Lommel concluded that his findings supported the theory that consciousness continued despite lack of neuronal activity in the brain. Van Lommel conjectured that continuity of consciousness may be achievable if the brain acted as a receiver for the information generated by memories and consciousness, which existed independently of the brain, just as radio, television and internet information existed independently of the instruments that received it.

— MrX 19:14, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Recent edits by Fodor Fan

I'm always concerned when existing content and sources are removed in favor of other content that voices a completely different viewpoint. This is especially troubling when the replacing content comes from a Skeptical Inquirer article about NDEs, which is different topic. We should discuss the merits of each of these changes, individually. - MrX 04:48, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

The Intrasomatic model is a self published fringe theory of Anthony Peake, it appears in one paranormal book only. It is not notable and has not been reviewed by the scientific community, it should be deleted. Fodor Fan (talk) 04:50, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I will respond in a second. I would like to quickly research this further. - MrX 04:56, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

OK, I agree this should go, as should the Intrasomatic model article via AfD, for the reasons you stated and that I verified by lack of independent third party sources.

As regard other 'fringe' theories, those should not simply be removed. The standard is verifiability, not truth. For example, Robert Monroe has advanced numerous theories and conjectures, and his work has been cited in several other publications. I think the subtle body concept was popularized by him. - MrX 05:10, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I deleted Frederick Aardema becuase he is a paranormal author when it comes to the OBE, whilst he does have a few other scientific publications, his ideas on the OBE are not accepted by the scientific community. Look online and all you will see his ideas spammed onto paranormal forums not mentioned on any scientific websites or in any scientific papers. Fodor Fan (talk) 05:04, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

The article reads "There are several other scientists, however, who challenge this approach, and argue that psychophysiological studies do not support the idea that the person is dreaming during an OBE" and the source given is Blackmore, S. (1992). Beyond the body: An investigation of out of body experiences. Chicago: Academy Chicago Publishers - Susan Blackmore from what I have read has said no such thing. Whoever added this was being dishonest and it should have been checked, that is why I deleted it. Fodor Fan (talk) 05:07, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I am going to have to continue this tomorrow because I'm about to go to bed. Generally, as I said on my talk page, we should present the major viewpoints from reliable sources, properly presented. We can toss out the blogs, fora, and other unreliable sources. - MrX 05:26, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

If there was one line mentioning the Intrasomatic model then it *might* be acceptable, but the user has gone overboard and created an entire article on it, and an entire section. As I said it is not notable enough. Only one book mentiones this "model". Also "Intrasomatic model" is not getting any internet hits, it may well be original research. Fodor Fan (talk) 05:15, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

"In 2011, British binary mind theorist and author Anthony Peake" there is a problem with that, Peake is not a scientist, and what is a "binary mind theorist"? Fodor Fan (talk) 05:18, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree. It should go. - MrX 05:26, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I don't think I can say anymore about it, we will have to wait til some other users come to a conclusion. Fodor Fan (talk) 05:35, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Peake isn't a big enough fish to warrant a dedicated section, but I think it's worth mentioning that he's not self-published, and is no more crackpot than you'd reasonably expect any co-editor of "Making Sense of Near-Death Experiences: A Handbook for Clinicians" to be. He lacks most of the usual unstated biases and is well connected, with high quality contacts on both sides of the mystical/scientific divide. Though he isn't a scientist, he takes research seriously and is fine as a scientific journalist. He's usable as a reference, but isn't highly referenced himself. K2709 (talk) 15:24, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

___________________________

This article doesn't say anything about veridical perception during an out of body experience. This is one of the most most important features of such cases because they lend support to the description of other parts of the experience. I wrote a peer-reviewed article on this recently which you may feel free to quote, but because I wrote it, am too "closely connected" to the source to introduce it here, though it is relevant and public. Here is a link: http://www.newdualism.org/nde-papers/Paquette/Paquette-Journal%20of%20Scientific%20Exploration_2012-26-791-824-1.pdf

Paqart (talk) 18:14, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

complete OBE was created in experiment

A complete OBE was created within seconds in healthy persons. The place cells in the brain show with fMRT that the OBE was successful. Information can be found: www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/04/150430124107.htm Brain scan reveals out-of-body illusion. DOI: 10.1016/j.cub.2015.03.059 Posterior cingulate cortex integrates the senses of self-location and body ownership — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.249.201.1 (talk) 16:30, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Unanimity of source

"Science considers the OBE a type of hallucination that can be caused by various neurological and psychological factors."

This statement, in Wikipedia' voice, claims that Science (presumably meaning scientific consensus) considers OBEs to be hallucinations. While I'm sure it's possible to find four (skeptical) sources that support such a view, is this really the scientific consensus? I'm skeptical.- MrX 20:16, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm adding some sources that should bear on how the lead is worded.

- MrX 20:43, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

An out-of-body experience (OBE) is a unique dissociative event in which the person feels separated from his/her body.

Joseph Meyerson and Marc Gelkopf, "Therapeutic Utilization of Spontaneous Out-of-Body Experiences in Hypnotherapy," American Journal of Psychotherapy 58, no. 1 (2004), http://www.questia.com/read/1P3-623520141.

If there is "something more" to OBEs and other anomalous experiences than can be understood naturalistically, such possibilities must be addressed by a different kind of study than we have considered here. (7) More rigorous studies of this latter sort with the controlled experimental. manipulations and observations of the alleged veridicality of OBEs am required. Relevant studies am currently underway, though positive results have, to my knowledge, yet to be reported.

James Allan Cheyne, "When Is an OBE Not an OBE? A New Look at Out-of-Body Experiences," Skeptic (Altadena, CA), Fall 2008, http://www.questia.com/read/1G1-190099336.

To date only few scientific investigations have been carried out on out of body experiences, probably because they generally occur spontaneously, are of short duration, and happen only once or twice in a lifetime.... The reviewed evidence from neurological patients experiencing this striking dissociation between self and body shows that out of body experiences are culturally invariant phenomena that can be investigated scientifically.

Out Of Body Experiences And Their Neural Basis: They Are Linked To Multisensory And Cognitive Processing In The Brain, Olaf Blanke, BMJ: British Medical Journal, Vol. 329, No. 7480 (Dec. 18 - 25, 2004), pp. 1414-1415, Published by: BMJ, Article Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25469629

OBEs can be induced by drugs or brain stimulation - we are looking at a psychological phenomena here, they are hallucinations. Nothing paranormal is going on. Yes, dissociation is part of the OBE experience, this is purely a psychological phenomena. It is all in the brain, nothing is leaving the body. The scientific consensus from the 1980s has been that OBEs are hallucinations. I don't get your comment about four skeptical sources. The majority of scientific papers on OBEs conclude they are hallucinations (I can list you hundreds going back about thirty years or more). Here's some recent publications which conclude this:

• Parra, Alejandro. (2009). Out-of-Body Experiences and Hallucinatory Experiences: A Psychological Approach. Journal: Imagination, Cognition and Personality , vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 211-223.
• Blanke, O; Ortigue, S; Landis, T; Seeck, M. (2002). Stimulating illusory own-body peceptions. Nature 419: 269-270.
• Blanke, O; Landis, T; Seeck, M. (2004). Out-of-body experience and autoscopy of neurological origin. Brain 127: 243-258.
• Blanke, O; Mohr, C. (2005). Out-of-body experience, heautoscopy, and autoscopic hallucination of neurological origin. Implications for mechanisms of corporeal awareness and self consciousness. Brain Research Reviews 50: 184-199.
• Brugger, P. (2002). Reflective mirrors: Perspective-taking in autoscopic phenomena. Cognitive Neuropsychiatry 7: 179-194.
• Cheyne, J. A; Girard, T. A. (2009). The body unbound: vestibular-motor hallucination and out of body experiences. Cortex 45: 201-215.
• Jason J. Braithwaite, Dana Samson, Ian Apperly, Emma Broglia, Johan Hulleman. (2011). Cognitive correlates of the spontaneous out-of-body experience (OBE) in the psychologically normal population: Evidence for an increased role of temporal-lobe instability, body-distortion processing, and impairments in own-body transformations. Cortex 47: 839-853.

And all three sources you quote mine above claim the OBE is a hallucination (did you read all of those papers?, especially the Blanke one), so I am not sure what you are skeptical of. It seems to me your issue might be a semantics issue or you are confused about what the OBE is, but I don't have a problem with how you have worded the lead. They are dissociative experiences, yes. Goblin Face (talk) 01:08, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I did read several of the papers, and none make such a conclusive statement as you have. It is somewhat of a semantics issue. "Dissociative experience" is more precise (and encyclopedic) than hallucination. They're not interchangeable words. Let's also not conflate research which has created OBE-like hallucinations in a laboratory with the idea that all OBEs are hallucinations. - MrX 02:49, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

• What do you expect? This is Wikipedia. The preferred method is to silence dissent with anything at all to do with science of any kind. They have a decidedly overly-left-wing view on certain things. Evidently OBE is one. The most obvious example of extreme dissent suppression is AGW. Give it up, you won't get past the Wiki censors. Which is why competing wikis have been built, and why Wikipedia is generally acknowledged as not a definitive source at all, on any subject at all --- but rather just one of many starting points on researching subjects you may be interested in. 10stone5 (talk) 17:55, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

That's not been my experience. Those who make the most reasoned arguments, grounded in policy, are the ones who are able to influence consensus. You will notice that the wording that I suggested is now in the article.- MrX 18:47, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

• And that's all well and good. My experience is that dissent and honest research is suppressed on contentious issues at Wikipedia. There is ample information on this phenomenum, available with a few clicks of the button. AGW is the most egrarious, to where almost any Wikipedia article at all connected to Global Warming has been rendered as compromised. But there are numerous other subjects simililarly rendered lower quality due to the same implicit non-dissent edict here at Wikipedia. My opinion is OED is a subject which is being degraded on Wikipedia due to this same phenomenum. 10stone5 (talk) 20:50, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

It is understandable that the OOBE is not hallucination but the experience of the astral world. How do you explain that a person during a clinical death heard and saw everything that went on next door? It should not even know any of the doctors in this room, and not the patient. Of course, the doctors incredibly confirmed what the patient said. Randi is a pseudo-skeptic and pseudoscientist. OOBE is primarily not hallucination and very real experience of soul human and still paranormal activ. Alex&Trevex 22:00, 24 July 2017 (CEST)

Material on Wikipedia has to be verifiable from reliable sources. Randi, for all his showman posturings, is regarded as one such. Personally, I think that Dr. Susan Blackmore is far more reliable than some publicity-conscious ex-magician - but she just happens to agree with him. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:31, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

10stone5: The reason that Wikipedia is not a "definitive source", as you put it, is that anyone can edit it. Generally, though, I've found that the more scientific or mathematical the topic, the better the Wikipedia article. These topics tend to attract editors who actually know what they're talking about and can think logicallly and rationally. The worst Wikipedia articles tend to be those concerning pop culture, especially pop music. These topics attract editors who not only don't know what they're talking about, but who don't think they need to know. Wikipedia articles about subjects for which there is a body of established scientific evidence but which remain contraversial outside of scientific circles are those that people who hold irrational anti-scientific beliefs complain most bitterly about on the talk pages. It isn't "left-wing" bias; it's truth bias. Wikipedia is biased toward the verifiable and the rational. TheScotch (talk)

History of the term

Article needs a correction: The term out-of-body experience was introduced in 1929 by Sylvan Muldoon and Hereward Harrington in their book The Projection of the Astral Body. Muldoon, S. & Carrington, H. (1929). The Projection of the Astral Body. London: Rider.— Preceding unsigned comment added by WickyDoug (talk • contribs) 22:23, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Charles Tart

Does this article refer to the work of Charles Tart? I shall have a look at it more thoroughly some time. Vorbee (talk) 20:50, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

I see the article does mention Charles Tart's work under the heading "Miss Z. study". Vorbee (talk) 20:59, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Let's face the evidence

Rather than dabble in writers' or - so-called - scientists' theories one should always first have a look at the hard evidence and give it a try. Of course, generally speaking there can be no 100-percent hard material evidence when it comes to things and apparitions pertaining to / originating in the Spirit world. For these extraterrestrial realms are governed by thoroughly different laws and states of any kind. Almost nothing (from) there compares to the Earth plane. But 99-percent, or maybe even less, should suffice to convince all the skeptics lurking around.

What I want to convey, is this: Leslie Flint (1911-94), greatest direct voice medium the world's ever seen, provides us with plenty of audio-taped séances wherein famous spirits relate their individual perception of the free soul while the body is sleeping so that in consequence, by virtue of the very esteem of these spirits' names and of their intellectual credibility, the 'paranormal' explanation of OBE has to be considered as being the only true and appropriate one. I'd like to pick just two examples (but surely there must be more on the LFET website): Composer Frédéric Chopin (1810-49) and novelist Charlotte Brontë (1816-55).

- Charlotte Brontë on April 5th 1973, starting at min 12:20: "Sometimes without their knowledge they are helped, often in perhaps their sleep state when they are relieved from the material worries and conditions of Earth. And they are able to leave the physical body temporarily, enter into the spheres of the Spirit realms and receive instruction and guidance and assistance. And they are sent back and wakened into the Earthly existence on the following morn. In a subconscious mind of the physical body are retained some of these memories which are drawn out sometimes at critical moments when they are most needed. Often when a person perhaps is fully unconscious or unaware, yet at that moment of inspiration as it is called comes forth this "something" that has been handed to them or given to them in so-called sleep state."

- Frédéric Chopin on November 12th 1953, starting at min 20:44: "In your sleep state sometimes you come here. Your brother: he bring you. [...] And it was him that introduce you to me. And since then you’ve been over many times and you go to various concerts, orchestra, you listen and you are like, oh, transfigured, you know. Ha, your face, huh! You don’t know how beautiful it is over here. It is very beautiful on your side in spite of all the complications of your world. But here, oh, it is different altogether."

Orbis*Non*Sufficit (talk) 03:52, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

A famous person's belief in the supernatural is not "evidence" of the supernatural. In any case, your Chopin quote reads to me like unintelligible gibberish. TheScotch (talk)