Mind, reason and near-death experiences

The short version

1. Felt experience has no physical explanation yet.

   Physics describes structure and dynamics, and nobody has shown how felt experience follows from them. Taken carefully, this shows that reality is not structure alone. That is a real result, but non-theists such as Chalmers accept it too.

   The evidence ↓
2. Near-death experiences are common, and a few are oddly accurate.

   About 10-20% of cardiac-arrest survivors report a lucid, structured experience. A handful described their own resuscitation in detail that staff confirmed.

   The evidence ↓
3. The hard part, told straight.

   No study has recorded a hit on a hidden picture. The brain can stay active during CPR, drugs and brain stimulation mimic the experience, its content follows culture, and some out-of-body "perceptions" were false.

   The evidence ↓
4. Modest evidence for mind, a small step toward God.

   We put the evidence at about 1.4 to 1 for a mind not reducible to the brain (range 0.4 to 5.6), and about 1.2 to 1 for theism (range 0.6 to 2.7). Philosophy alone can never lift that above about 4. A decisive near-death case could, but none exists. Nothing here points to Christianity in particular.

   The evidence ↓

The question

Is the conscious mind wholly produced by, and confined to, the activity of the brain? And if the evidence says it is not, what does that do for the claim that a Mind stands behind nature?

Jesus assumed the answer was no: "Don't be afraid of those who kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul" (Matthew 10:28, WEB). That is the claim on trial here. A verse cannot settle it, so we look at what each view predicts and at the record.

Two inferences have to be kept apart. Evidence → M: does the record favour a mind that is more than brain? M → T: does such a mind favour God? Popular arguments often run them together, and often run M into "the biblical afterlife" as well. We score each step on its own.

"More than brain" also covers two claims of very different reach. The weaker one is that experience is not fixed by physics as written: the deepest level of reality is not structure alone. Non-theistic views share it, among them Chalmers' naturalistic dualism, Russellian monism (physical things have an inner nature that physics does not describe) and panpsychism. The stronger one is a separable mind, one that can perceive or persist without the brain. The hard problem bears on the first. The near-death evidence, and the brain-dependence evidence against it, bear on the second. We keep the two apart in the numbers too.

Rules of evidence

Fixed before scoring:

1. A veridical hit (a perception that turned out true) is a perception reported during presumed unconsciousness that is (a) specific, not generic resuscitation knowledge such as "they pushed on my chest"; (b) recorded before it was checked, or at least by someone other than the experiencer; (c) corroborated by a named third party or a record; (d) not reachable by ordinary channels: hearing, touch, inference, prior knowledge or later conversation; and (e) timed against an independent physiological record (EEG, arrest log) showing that cortical function was absent or badly depressed at the moment of the perceived event. Cases are graded on how many of (a) to (e) they meet. This mirrors the criteria of the 2025 veridical-NDE scale (timing of investigation, unconsciousness, arrest or cessation of brain activity, third-person verification, possible physical explanation, number, errors and clarity of perceptions).¹
2. A miss is any hidden-target trial where an out-of-body claimant had the target in view from the claimed vantage point and did not report it; any documented false perception during an out-of-body experience; and any account whose details improved over time.
3. The denominator. The best cases are picked from a very large pool: tens of thousands of collected accounts, more than a hundred published "veridical" ones. A case is scored as the best of many, not as a lone event. Prospective studies, which enrol patients before anyone knows who will report an experience and so have a known denominator, outrank collections of stories.
4. Physiology. "Clinical death" (no pulse) is not "no brain activity". Unless an EEG or its equivalent covers the perceived moment, "no measurable brain activity" is not established. Memories can also form at the edges, as consciousness fades or returns, and be misdated.
5. Content. What people see (light, beings, a life review) counts as evidence about the afterlife only if it matches a prediction made in advance, across cultures, better than culture and expectation would. Matching Bible verses after the fact is excluded unless the content that does not match is scored too.
6. Philosophy is scored as modest likelihood ratios with the strongest reply stated, never as a proof. (A likelihood ratio says how many times more probable the evidence is under one hypothesis than under the other; 1 means it does not discriminate.)
7. Excluded: Eben Alexander's Proof of Heaven (no checkable content; his medical narrative is disputed), popular collections without investigation, "consciousness collapses the wave function" claims, the Global Consciousness Project, and experiments in which people try to bias random-number generators by intention (disputed, not replicated).
8. Posits are not results. An axiom such as "consciousness is the fundamental substrate of reality" counts for nothing until an argument for it is given, and each argument is graded on its own. A model built by fitting it to near-death or mystical reports is not confirmed by fitting them.

The evidence

Philosophy and the science of consciousness

In 1995 David Chalmers separated the "easy" problems of consciousness (how the brain discriminates, integrates and reports) from the hard one: "The really hard problem of consciousness is the problem of experience."² Explaining every function would still leave open why the functions are felt. Chalmers did not conclude that God exists. He proposed a "naturalistic dualism", in his words "entirely compatible with the scientific view of the world".

The argument in its strongest careful form. Physics describes its entities only by structure and dynamics: their mathematical relations and how they change. From facts of that kind, reasoning yields only more facts of that kind, and felt experience is not one of them. So a world physically just like ours, in which someone's experience is for one moment slightly different, seems conceivable even on full reflection. If what is conceivable on full reflection is possible (a principle called modal rationalism, itself contested), experience is not fixed by physics as written.³ To deny the conclusion, one must pay one of three prices:

• experience is an illusion: every judgment that we have experiences is false, and the illusion itself still needs explaining (strong illusionism);
• physics does entail experience, by a derivation no one has been able to show (type-A physicalism);
• brain and experience are tied by a kind of necessity found nowhere else in nature (type-B physicalism).

Each price is argued for and each is disputed, so we grade this as a good philosophical argument, not a result of physics. Its conclusion is narrow: the deepest level of reality is not structure alone; something there makes experience follow. It does not show that mind is the foundation of reality, that there is a soul, that anyone survives death, or that God exists. Nor does it tell theism apart from naturalistic dualism or Russellian monism.

Philosophers are split. In the 2020 PhilPapers Survey of professional philosophers, about 52% accepted or leaned toward physicalism about the mind and about 32% toward non-physicalism (roughly three in four of them dualists, one in four panpsychists); about 62% said there is a hard problem.⁴ The science is unsettled too. An adversarial test of the two leading theories, integrated information theory and global neuronal workspace theory (256 participants; fMRI, MEG and intracranial EEG), produced results that "align with some predictions of IIT and GNWT, while substantially challenging key tenets of both theories".⁵ In 1998 Christof Koch bet Chalmers that a clear neural signature of consciousness would be found within 25 years; in June 2023 he paid up.⁶ Months later, 124 researchers signed a letter calling integrated information theory "pseudoscience".⁷

What this shows: "neuroscience has explained consciousness" is false as of 2025. What it does not show: that it never will. A lost bet is weak evidence, and the science of the brain correlates of consciousness has made real progress.

The other side of the ledger is heavy. Anaesthesia switches experience off. Focal lesions remove specific abilities (speech, face recognition, attention to one side of space). Dementia erodes the self. Drugs change experience predictably. Electrical stimulation of one spot, the right angular gyrus, produced out-of-body sensations in a patient.⁸ Physicalism predicts all of this outright. Dualism has to explain it after the fact.

How common near-death experiences are

Prospective studies, which interview every survivor in a defined group, are the solid ground. They agree that a minority of cardiac-arrest survivors, roughly one in ten to one in five, report a lucid, structured experience.

Van Lommel's team drew a pointed inference from the timing data: "With a purely physiological explanation such as cerebral anoxia for the experience, most patients who have been clinically dead should report one."¹⁴ That is a fair point against oxygen loss as the whole story. It does not rule out other brain mechanisms, which the next sections take up.

The best cases, graded

Here are the cases most often cited, scored by the five criteria above. A case would need to meet all five to tell against strict physicalism decisively. None does; most fail on timing.

What the dying brain does

The phrase "no brain activity" carries most of the popular argument, so it needs care. Cortical EEG typically goes flat within 10-20 seconds of circulatory arrest; van Lommel's paper puts it at about 10 seconds "in most cases".¹⁴ But CPR restores partial blood flow, and the record since 2013 shows the dying or resuscitated brain doing more than once assumed.

Each mechanism explains part of the data. None has been shown to produce a specific, accurate perception of something the senses could not reach. That gap is exactly where the veridical cases sit, and exactly where the controlled tests have come back empty.

What near-death experiences contain, across cultures

The experience has a common core across cultures, but culture, religion and language shape both its content and how it is read.⁴⁵ In 16 investigated Indian cases there were no tunnels, and experiencers were fetched by the messengers of Yama, the Hindu lord of death, then sent back because the wrong person had been taken.^{46, 47} In several non-Western samples the tunnel and the life review are rare or absent, and the beings met are named in the experiencer's own religious terms.⁴⁸ Distressing experiences (panic, a void, hellish scenes) make up roughly 11-22% of NDEs in reviews, and they occur across groups.⁴⁹ Accounts also change in the retelling.⁵⁰

So light-and-love experiences occur among Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims, atheists and Christians, and the being is named after the experiencer's own tradition. That fits "a real mind, plus cultural interpretation" and "a brain, plus culture" equally well. It does not single out Christianity.

The analysis

The falsification argument, stated fairly

The hard problem works the same way, as a likelihood, not a proof. A world made by a Mind makes experience unsurprising. A world of structure alone has no place for it, if the argument above is right. Physicalists have answers on offer: that physics entails experience in a way we cannot yet see, that brain and experience are tied by a unique necessity, or that experience is itself an illusion (Dennett, Frankish). So we count consciousness as modest evidence, not a refutation. And we count it as evidence for the narrow claim, "not structure alone", which some non-theistic views also make.

The prospective data, where the denominator is known

expected corroborated reports:   physicalism ~2.0   mind ~4.1   observed 3
Bayes factor, mind : physicalism
  g between 0.1% and 10%    1.08
  g between 1% and 50%      0.83
  g between 10% and 50%     0.40

The best stories, corrected for selection

A case that looks like a 1-in-1,000 coincidence is not 1-in-1,000 evidence if it was chosen as the best of a thousand. The chance that at least one such case turns up anyway is 1 − (1 − p)^N.

None of the top cases has its ordinary channels excluded to anything like 1 in 10,000, so we score the retrospective corpus at 1 to 3 (median 1.7). It is not worthless: the corroborated cases are real, the better ones are specific, and experiencers did better than people asked to imagine their resuscitation. But it is not strong.

All the lines together

From mind to God: two channels, two ceilings

Suppose the evidence favours a mind that is more than brain. How much does that favour theism over naturalism? It depends on which claim the evidence supports and how likely that claim is under each view.

• Not structure alone (the hard problem, the argument from reason): about 2.7 to 1 over structural physicalism (range 1.3 to 5.7). Theism makes it very likely: we take 0.70 to 0.95. Naturalism makes it less likely but far from impossible, because it hosts naturalistic dualism, Russellian monism and panpsychism: 0.10 to 0.35, anchored on the third of philosophers who reject physicalism, most of whom are not theists.
• A separable mind (the near-death data, with the brain-dependence data against): about 0.53 to 1 (range 0.17 to 1.6), so the empirical record slightly favours its denial. Theism makes a separable, surviving mind likely: about 0.5 to 0.8 overall. Naturalism almost never includes one: about 0.01 to 0.08.

The two channels have very different ceilings. However strong the philosophy gets, it can at most roughly quadruple the odds of theism over naturalism, because naturalism shares its conclusion often enough. A decisive empirical result is another matter. A clean hidden-target hit, with EEG showing the brain flat at the time, would point to a separable mind, which theism expects far more than naturalism does. That could move the odds by a factor of about 20. It has not happened.

LR(theism : naturalism) = [(1-sT) + sT·Lp·((1-mT) + mT·Le)] / [(1-sN) + sN·Lp·((1-mN) + mN·Le)]
Lp = philosophy (not structure alone vs structural physicalism)
Le = near-death and dependence data (separable mind vs the rest)
s = P(not structure alone | view), m = P(separable mind | not structure alone, view)
All components:      1.17  (90% range 0.60 to 2.69)
Near-death only:     1.16  (0.70 to 2.17)
Philosophy only:     1.70  (1.14 to 2.65)

An earlier version of this page used a single intermediate claim and a single ceiling of about 3.5. Separating the two claims leaves the central value where it was and widens the range. The mind argument's larger role in the whole case is still to remove an obstacle, the belief that science has shown we are only matter. It is not a strong pointer to God, and still less to the God of the Bible.

Sensitivity

• The biggest swing is mind-brain dependence (C3). A reader who thinks dualism predicts dependence as well as physicalism does gets an overall median of about 3.4; one who thinks dependence is a severe embarrassment for dualism gets about 0.7.
• The prospective numbers are fragile. One clean hidden-target hit under protocol, with EEG at the time, would change everything. AWARE II asked survivors to pick the image from a set of ten, so a single hit could be a 1-in-10 chance (ratio about 5). A spontaneous, specific description of an image from a large pool, or several independent hits, with a flat EEG at the time, would carry a ratio of 100 or more. That is the honest test. It has not yet come in.
• The philosophical components are partly priors in disguise. They are counted here and must not be counted again elsewhere.
• For theism, nothing plausible moves the central value far from 1.2. Taking the hard problem as stronger (2 to 8 instead of 1 to 4) gives 1.6. Taking dualism to predict brain dependence as well as physicalism does gives 2.0. Applying the argument from reason directly to theism gives 1.4. Counting Russellian physicalists among the non-structural views (naturalism 0.20 to 0.50) gives 1.0.

Objections

What this shows, and what it doesn't

What we don't claim

• "Thousands" or "hundreds" of verified veridical NDEs. Holden's review found more than a hundred published apparent cases, mostly retrospective, few independently corroborated.
• "Perception with no measurable brain activity." No veridical case has an EEG covering the perceived moment, and AWARE II found near-normal EEG during CPR in some patients.
• "Pam Reynolds saw the saw while her brain was flat." On the surgical timeline the perceptions came under anaesthesia at normal temperature, before standstill.
• "Maria's shoe could not have been seen." Investigators found it visible from inside the room; there is one witness, and Maria was never traced.
• "AWARE confirmed out-of-body perception." Zero visual-target hits in AWARE I and II; the one verifiable case happened in a room with no target.
• "NDEs falsify materialism", "decisively", "proves". The logic works only given a qualifying case, and none exists yet.
• "Oxygen loss, drugs and REM have all been ruled out." Each explains part of the data (the carbon-dioxide link, the ketamine similarity, the REM association, the gamma surge).
• "Hindus and atheists see Jesus" or "NDEs confirm the biblical heaven and hell." Content follows the experiencer's culture, distressing NDEs occur across groups, and matching verses after the fact proves nothing.
• "Eben Alexander's neocortex was shut down, so his NDE proves..." Disputed, and nothing in it can be checked.
• "Neuroscience has admitted it cannot explain consciousness." The lost bet and the Cogitate results show the leading theories are unsettled, not that a physical explanation is impossible.
• Planck's "I regard consciousness as fundamental" as an authority for dualism, or "consciousness collapses the wave function". The Planck wording is unverified and the quantum reading is a minority interpretation.
• "Children too young to be taught report Christian imagery." No systematic source supports it.
• "Terminal lucidity proves the mind is separate." The reports are anecdotal, and the leading paper proposes studying it as neurobiology.
• "The hard problem proves there is a soul, that we survive death, or that God exists." It shows only that reality is not structure alone, and naturalistic dualism and Russellian monism say the same.
• "The explanatory gap has been formally demonstrated." It is argued, not demonstrated; each way out has a real but disputed cost.
• "Consciousness is the fundamental substrate of reality", "a universal conscious field". Proposals of this kind are posited, not derived. Nothing in the evidence on this page establishes them, and "mind is fundamental" remains contested even among those who accept the hard problem.
• "Integrated information theory shows the universe is conscious" or "binding is instantaneous, so it needs a non-local mind". The theory is contested, and its own exclusion rule would deny human consciousness inside a conscious cosmos. Binding takes about a tenth of a second, ample time for nerve signals.
• "Your atoms are replaced every few years, so you are not your body." That refutes only identity with a fixed set of particles; views on which a person is a pattern or a continuing process are physicalist and untouched.
• "The soul is a coherent quantum state", "the will collapses the wave function", "quantum biology and the Global Consciousness Project support it". Brain decoherence is far too fast, no departure from quantum statistics has been found, and the random-generator studies are disputed and not accepted.
• "The brain filters out 99.999% of information, which proves it is a filter for the soul." The popular figures are untraced, and the measured bottleneck is predicted as well by a brain that produces the mind.
• "Physics has equations that include consciousness." Standard physics has no variable for consciousness; the links people draw (to the observer effect, to entropy bounds, to Bell's theorem) are interpretations, mostly minority ones.
• "Neuroscience has shown the brain decides before you do." The timing data are real; reading them as a decision is contested.

Sources

1. Greyson B, Long J, Holden JM, et al. (2025). "The veridical Near-Death Experience Scale: construction and a first validation with human and artificial raters." Frontiers in Psychology 16. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1661390
2. Chalmers DJ (1995). "Facing up to the problem of consciousness." Journal of Consciousness Studies 2(3): 200-219. consc.net
3. Chalmers DJ (2002). "Does conceivability entail possibility?" In Gendler T, Hawthorne J (eds.), Conceivability and Possibility. Oxford UP. consc.net; (2010). "The two-dimensional argument against materialism." In The Character of Consciousness. Oxford UP. consc.net
4. Bourget D, Chalmers DJ (2023). "Philosophers on philosophy: the 2020 PhilPapers Survey." Philosophers' Imprint. Results: survey2020.philpeople.org (figures rounded; checked against secondary reports, the results page being behind a bot check).
5. Cogitate Consortium, Ferrante O, et al. (2025). "Adversarial testing of global neuronal workspace and integrated information theories of consciousness." Nature. doi:10.1038/s41586-025-08888-1
6. "A 25-year-old bet about consciousness has finally been settled." Scientific American, 2023; and NPR, 12 July 2023 (secondary reports of the Koch-Chalmers bet, conceded 23 June 2023).
7. Fleming SM, et al. (2023). "The integrated information theory of consciousness as pseudoscience." PsyArXiv. doi:10.31234/osf.io/zsr78
8. Blanke O, Ortigue S, Landis T, Seeck M (2002). "Stimulating illusory own-body perceptions." Nature 419: 269-270. doi:10.1038/419269a
9. Cutter B, Crummett D (2025). "Psychophysical harmony." Oxford Studies in Philosophy of Religion 11: 33-71; quotations from the authors' summary, New Work in Philosophy.
10. Lewis CS (1947; ch. 3 revised 1960). Miracles: A Preliminary Study; Anscombe GEM (1948). "A reply to Mr C. S. Lewis's argument that 'naturalism' is self-refuting." Socratic Digest; Reppert V (2003). C. S. Lewis's Dangerous Idea. IVP.
11. Plantinga A (1993). Warrant and Proper Function, ch. 12. Oxford UP; (2011). Where the Conflict Really Lies. Oxford UP; (2003). "Probability and defeaters." Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 84: 291-298.
12. Fitelson B, Sober E (1998). "Plantinga's probability arguments against evolutionary naturalism." Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 79: 115-129; Beilby J (ed.) (2002). Naturalism Defeated? Cornell UP.
13. Nagel T (2012). Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False. Oxford UP. Reviews: Weisberg M, Leiter B, The Nation, 2012; Dupré J, Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews, 2012; Sober E, Boston Review, 2012.
14. van Lommel P, van Wees R, Meyers V, Elfferich I (2001). "Near-death experience in survivors of cardiac arrest: a prospective study in the Netherlands." Lancet 358: 2039-2045 (Table 2 and the dentures account checked in the full text). doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(01)07100-8
15. Greyson B (2003). "Incidence and correlates of near-death experiences in a cardiac care unit." General Hospital Psychiatry 25: 269-276. doi:10.1016/S0163-8343(03)00042-2
16. Parnia S, Spearpoint K, de Vos G, et al. (2014). "AWARE: AWAreness during REsuscitation, a prospective study." Resuscitation 85: 1799-1805. doi:10.1016/j.resuscitation.2014.09.004
17. Parnia S, Keshavarz Shirazi T, Patel J, et al. (2023). "AWAreness during REsuscitation II: a multi-center study of consciousness and awareness in cardiac arrest." Resuscitation 191: 109903. doi:10.1016/j.resuscitation.2023.109903
18. Klemenc-Ketis Z, Kersnik J, Grmec S (2010). "The effect of carbon dioxide on near-death experiences in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest survivors." Critical Care 14: R56. doi:10.1186/cc8952
19. Kondziella D, Dreier JP, Olsen MH (2019). "Prevalence of near-death experiences in people with and without REM sleep intrusion." PeerJ 7: e7585. doi:10.7717/peerj.7585
20. Greyson B (1983). "The near-death experience scale: construction, reliability, and validity." Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease 171: 369-375.
21. Sartori P, Badham P, Fenwick P (2006). "A prospectively studied near-death experience with corroborated out-of-body perceptions and unexplained healing." Journal of Near-Death Studies 25(2): 69-84 (read in full). UNT Digital Library; Sartori P (2008). The Near-Death Experiences of Hospitalized Intensive Care Patients: A Five-Year Clinical Study. Edwin Mellen.
22. Psi Encyclopedia (Society for Psychical Research). "AWARE NDE Studies." psi-encyclopedia.spr.ac.uk (a sympathetic secondary account).
23. Greyson B, Holden JM, Mounsey JP (2006). "Failure to elicit near-death experiences in induced cardiac arrest." Journal of Near-Death Studies 25: 85-98.
24. Smit RH (2008). "Corroboration of the dentures anecdote involving veridical perception in a near-death experience." Journal of Near-Death Studies 27(1): 47-61. UNT Digital Library
25. Woerlee GM (2010). "Response to 'Corroboration of the dentures anecdote...'." Journal of Near-Death Studies 28(4): 181-191. UNT Digital Library
26. Cook EW, Greyson B, Stevenson I (1998). "Do any near-death experiences provide evidence for the survival of human personality after death?" Journal of Scientific Exploration 12: 377-406.
27. Sebel PS, Bowdle TA, Ghoneim MM, et al. (2004). "The incidence of awareness during anesthesia: a multicenter United States study." Anesthesia & Analgesia 99: 833-839. doi:10.1213/01.ANE.0000130261.90896.6C
28. Sabom M (1998). Light and Death. Zondervan.
29. Woerlee GM (2005). "An anaesthesiologist examines the Pam Reynolds story." The Skeptic (UK), parts 1-2. skeptic.org.uk; (2011). "Could Pam Reynolds hear?" and "Rejoinder to responses." Journal of Near-Death Studies 30(1).
30. Augustine K (2007). "Does paranormal perception occur in near-death experiences?" Journal of Near-Death Studies 25(4), with commentaries and reply in 26(1).
31. Ring K, Cooper S (1997). "Near-death and out-of-body experiences in the blind: a study of apparent eyeless vision." Journal of Near-Death Studies 16(2): 101-147 (read in full). UNT Digital Library; expanded as Mindsight (1999).
32. Clark K (1984). "Clinical interventions with near-death experiencers." In Greyson B, Flynn CP (eds.), The Near-Death Experience: Problems, Prospects, Perspectives. Charles C. Thomas.
33. Ebbern H, Mulligan S, Beyerstein BL (1996). "Maria's near-death experience: waiting for the other shoe to drop." Skeptical Inquirer 20(4): 27-33.
34. Sharp KC (2007). "The other shoe drops: commentary on 'Does paranormal perception occur in near-death experiences?'." Journal of Near-Death Studies 25(4): 245-250. UNT Digital Library
35. Holden JM (2009). "Veridical perception in near-death experiences." In Holden JM, Greyson B, James D (eds.), The Handbook of Near-Death Experiences: Thirty Years of Investigation. Praeger, pp. 185-211 (not read directly; summarized via the 2025 paper co-authored by Holden).
36. Sabom M (2009). "What is a near death experience?" Christian Research Journal. equip.org; Sabom M (1982). Recollections of Death: A Medical Investigation. Harper & Row.
37. Augustine K (2003, rev. 2008). "Hallucinatory near-death experiences." Internet Infidels. infidels.org
38. Borjigin J, Lee U, Liu T, et al. (2013). "Surge of neurophysiological coherence and connectivity in the dying brain." PNAS 110: 14432-14437. doi:10.1073/pnas.1308285110
39. Xu G, Mihaylova T, Li D, et al. (2023). "Surge of neurophysiological coupling and connectivity of gamma oscillations in the dying human brain." PNAS 120: e2216268120. doi:10.1073/pnas.2216268120
40. Shaw NA (2024). "The gamma-band activity model of the near-death experience: a critique and a reinterpretation." F1000Research. doi:10.12688/f1000research.151422.2
41. Olaussen A, Shepherd M, Nehme Z, et al. (2015). "Return of consciousness during ongoing cardiopulmonary resuscitation: a systematic review." Resuscitation 86: 44-48. doi:10.1016/j.resuscitation.2014.10.017
42. Martial C, Cassol H, Charland-Verville V, et al. (2019). "Neurochemical models of near-death experiences: a large-scale study based on the semantic similarity of written reports." Consciousness and Cognition 69: 52-69. doi:10.1016/j.concog.2019.01.011
43. Michael P, Luke D, Robinson O (2025). "An encounter with death: a comparative thematic and content analysis of naturalistic DMT experiences and the near-death experience." Frontiers in Psychology. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1532937
44. Nelson KR, Mattingly M, Lee SA, Schmitt FA (2006). "Does the arousal system contribute to near death experience?" Neurology 66: 1003-1009. doi:10.1212/01.wnl.0000204296.15607.37; criticized for its controls in Greyson B, Long JP, letter, Neurology 2006.
45. Belanti J, Perera M, Jagadheesan K (2008). "Phenomenology of near-death experiences: a cross-cultural perspective." Transcultural Psychiatry 45: 121-133. doi:10.1177/1363461507088001
46. Pasricha S, Stevenson I (1986). "Near-death experiences in India: a preliminary report." Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease 174: 165-170.
47. Kellehear A, Stevenson I, Pasricha S, Cook E (1994). "The absence of tunnel sensations in near-death experiences from India." Journal of Near-Death Studies 13(2); replying to Blackmore S (1993), "Near-death experiences in India: they have tunnels too." Journal of Near-Death Studies 11: 205-217.
48. Kellehear A (1996). Experiences Near Death: Beyond Medicine and Religion. Oxford UP.
49. Bush NE, Greyson B (2014). "Distressing near-death experiences: the basics." Missouri Medicine 111: 486-491; Cassol H, et al. (2019). "A systematic analysis of distressing near-death experience accounts." Memory.
50. Fritz P, et al. (2025). "Near-death experience during emergency ketamine use: a case report." Brain and Behavior. doi:10.1002/brb3.70939
51. Mashour GA, Frank L, Batthyány A, et al. (2019). "Paradoxical lucidity: a potential paradigm shift for the neurobiology and treatment of severe dementias." Alzheimer's & Dementia 15: 1107-1114. doi:10.1016/j.jalz.2019.04.002
52. Nahm M, Greyson B (2009). "Terminal lucidity in patients with chronic schizophrenia and dementia." Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease 197: 942-944; Nahm M, Greyson B, Kelly EW, Haraldsson E (2012). "Terminal lucidity: a review and a case collection." Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics 55: 138-142; Batthyány A, Greyson B (2021). "Spontaneous remission of dementia before death." Psychology of Consciousness 8: 1-8.
53. Roehrs P, Fenwick P, Greyson B, et al. (2024). "Terminal lucidity in a pediatric oncology clinic." Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease. doi:10.1097/NMD.0000000000001711
54. Kelly EF, Kelly EW, Crabtree A, et al. (2007). Irreducible Mind: Toward a Psychology for the 21st Century. Rowman & Littlefield; James W (1898). Human Immortality.
55. Tegmark M (2000). "The importance of quantum decoherence in brain processes." Physical Review E 61: 4194-4206. arXiv:quant-ph/9907009
56. Atmanspacher H. "Quantum approaches to consciousness." Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (revised 2024). plato.stanford.edu
57. The New York Declaration on Animal Consciousness (19 April 2024). sites.google.com/nyu.edu/nydeclaration
58. Schurger A, Sitt JD, Dehaene S (2012). "An accumulator model for spontaneous neural activity prior to self-initiated movement." PNAS 109(42): E2904-E2913. doi:10.1073/pnas.1210467109
59. Maoz U, Yaffe G, Koch C, Mudrik L (2019). "Neural precursors of decisions that matter: an ERP study of deliberate and arbitrary choice." eLife 8: e39787. doi:10.7554/eLife.39787
60. Zheng J, Meister M (2025). "The unbearable slowness of being: why do we live at 10 bits/s?" Neuron 113(2): 192-204. doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2024.11.008