Dealing With Death After Deconverting

[Overcame Faith]

One of the important issues that those of us who have left the Christian religion must come to terms with is the issue of death. What I am referring to is what happens after we die? I will state upfront that I have no answers to this question. I simply do not know with 100% certainty what will happen to our consciousness or our essential selves once our physical bodies expire.

 

This issue usually involves two issues. The first issue is what happens to us? The second issue (and the one that many people are most concerned about) is what happens to our loved ones and is it true that we will never see them again?

 

For many people, the most reassuring thing about the Christian religion is the promise that if we die as a Christian our lives will continue and if our loved ones die as Christians their lives, too, will continue and we will be reunited with them. I know how comforting that belief can be when a loved one dies. I also know the troubling thought, even the despair involved with thinking that maybe we will never see them again, that maybe they are lost to us forever. For some people these issues cause them to cling to the Christian religion. They can't let go of that hope which they feel the religion offers them. I find this refusal to shed oneself of this final hope quite understandable because it is part of our human experience not to want to face either our ultimate demise or the ultimate demise of our loved ones.

 

We do know certain things about death. We know that death involves the ceasing of all physical functioning, including especially the functioning of the brain. We know that once the body actually dies, there is no resurrecting it.

 

I want to distinguish between true death and what has been termed clinical death. True death is something that medical science is having trouble defining these days when our bodies can be sustained on life support systems. But that trouble concerns determining the moment of death, not death itself. What we do know is that there is no dispute over the fact that once all bodily functions, including especially the brain, cease for some period of time, that the condition we know as physical death is irreversible from a purely physical standpoint.

 

The term clinical death often comes up when a family is left with the gut wrenching decision of whether to remove a loved one from life support systems. It is especially troubling because no one wants to remove a loved one from such support systems if they are still alive or if a recovery is possible. There have been some amazing stories of people having been termed clinically dead yet who are revived after some period of time, sometimes quite long periods of time. But here's the thing about these fortunate individuals. Though they met certain definitions of death, the very fact that they were revived proves that they never experienced true death (thankfully for them and their loved ones).

 

Clinical death also comes up when a person who was "clinically dead" and who is later revived tells of having had a near death experience (NDE). I will be the first to admit that some of these stories are quite remarkable. In 1976 when I was a young man, I read a book entitled, "Life after Life." It was written by an MD by the name of Raymond A. Moody, Jr. To my young mind the stories told in that book seemed to confirm the Christian concept of the existence of our eternal souls. It was one of the things that eventually led me to a deep commitment to the Christian religion.

 

Are the NDEs evidence that our souls (or consciousness) survive our physical deaths? Many exChristians have different answers to this question. I do not know the true answer nor will I try to persuade anyone one way or the other. But what I do know is that all of these people who experienced NDEs and were revived to tell of their experiences prove to me that they did not experience true death since true death is irreversible. To my mind, therefore, the question of whether our consciousness survives true death is still an open question.

 

You may wonder if the question of whether our consciousness survives after true death is still an open question to me, do I still have the hope of surviving true death and being somehow reunited with loved ones?

 

I want to begin answering this question by discussing the Christian concept of surviving true death. According to the Christian religion, that survival depends on the resurrection of Jesus and our acceptance of him as Lord and Savior (and other things, depending on one's interpretation of the Bible). Having debunked Christianity in my mind so solidly that I reject it all, I absolutely reject that Jesus was actually resurrected (if he existed at all) and thus reject the notion that we gain eternal life through his death and resurrection. So, no, I do not cling to the Christian hope of eternal life to any degree whatsoever.

 

As for whether our consciousness somehow survives true death outside of the Christian religion, my answer is that I do not know.

 

Does not knowing bother me? It did bother me for sometime. After all, I am as human as anyone else. I do not want to cease to exist and I most certainly want to be reunited with my loved ones who have died.

 

What I have done to deal with this issue is to assume that true death is the end of us, that our conscious selves do not survive true death. The way I figure it is that if I am wrong and somehow awaken after my own true death to discover that I am still alive, I will be happily surprised. On the other hand, if my assumption is correct, I will not be disappointed because I will not be. As many on ExC have said, it will be exactly as it was before my birth where there was nothing as far as I was concerned. There will be neither joy nor disappointment, neither ecstasy nor pain, neither reward nor punishment. I find it to be a win win situation.

 

There are things that I find quite comforting about rejecting the Christian concept of eternal life through Jesus. Perhaps the thing I find most comforting is the sure knowledge that none of my deceased loved ones are suffering the torment of hell and that, no matter what, neither will I. One thing that really grieves me are those true believer Christians whose child, spouse, parents, friends and other loved ones died and were not Christians and the pain and suffering they are experiencing because they believe their loved ones are writhing in pain from the eternal fire and torment of hell. Such needless suffering on their parts makes my heart go out to those Christians and makes me want to reassure them that their loved ones are not suffering the torment of hell.

 

How do you come to terms with rejecting Christianity and thus rejecting the (false) promise of eternal life through Jesus and the hope of being reunited with your deceased loved ones? I wish I could answer that question for you and to give you some magic formula that will ease you through this issue if it is bothering you. The best I can do is to have shared with you my thought processes on the issue and hope that maybe it will help you come to terms with the issue.

[florduh]

I simply do not know with 100% certainty what will happen to our consciousness or our essential selves once our physical bodies expire.

Nobody does. Not even Christians who claim certain knowledge of their eternal life - it is merely a belief.

 

Spooky experiences aside (which neuroscience can explain) there is no evidence of life after death. Near death is not death, and nobody has ever returned to life after death; NDE seems irrelevant when looking at life after death.

 

Of course anything is technically possible; after death we might return as cats, go to Heaven or enter new bodies on another planet - but that seems most unlikely since it can be shown that living brain tissue creates the personality, cognitive abilities, etc. in each of us.

[Overcame Faith]

I want to add a few thoughts to the OP.

 

Once I came to terms with my own probable mortality, I saw life as more precious than I had ever seen it before. If this is all we have and there is no blissful eternal life awaiting us, then I began to see each life as something more special than I was able to see before. I began to see war for what it really is and I began opposing war more than I ever had before. It is not that I believe there is never a justifiable war, it is rather that I came to see that if our political leaders are going to guide us into a war, they have an absolute responsibility to justify the loss of the soldiers' and sailors' one and only lives fully and completely. I came to see most wars, including especially those fought for political advantage, as immoral.

 

Sometimes I think that many (though not all) Christians are all too ready to accept war even if it means that they or their children may lose their lives in it. The reason is because, though they will surely grieve their loss, they are able to cling to the hope of their child surviving it in the spiritual sense. I am confident that our political leaders who lead us into war take full advantage of this widespread belief in the immortal soul. Take away this belief, then the willingness of some to allow their children to be sacrificed at the altar of unjustifiable wars should evaporate (I dearly hope so, anyway).

 

I also began to see that the quality of every life is of utmost importance. No longer did I see starving African children as mere unfortunate individuals who will at least be granted access to heaven, but I saw them as living beings just like me who probably only have the here and now. I grieve now over their circumstances.

 

Accepting the probability that this is all we have, just this one life, has begun making me to live one moment at a time and appreciate my loved ones more than I ever had before. If I am not to be reunited with them in a heavenly realm, then I must hold on to and cherish every moment I have with them.

 

What I am saying is that coming to terms with our probable mortality does not necessarily lead to a who gives a damned attitude. Rather, for the thoughtful person, it leads to a more rigorous and thorough giving far more than a damned attitude. It can lead to more compassion, more love of one's own life, and far more respect for the lives of others.

[2Honest]

Accepting the probability that this is all we have, just this one life, has begun making me to live one moment at a time and appreciate my loved ones more than I ever had before. If I am not to be reunited with them in a heavenly realm, then I must hold on to and cherish every moment I have with them.

 

What I am saying is that coming to terms with our probable mortality does not necessarily lead to a who gives a damned attitude. Rather, for the thoughtful person, it leads to a more rigorous and thorough giving far more than a damned attitude. It can lead to more compassion, more love of one's own life, and far more respect for the lives of others.

 

Beautifully said. I totally agree and have had many of the same realizations you've shared. Thanks again for another thoughtful post!

[Vigile]

I simply do not know with 100% certainty what will happen to our consciousness or our essential selves once our physical bodies expire

 

Personally, I'm 99.999999% certain. Consciousness has been demonstrated to be a function of the human brain. I don't see any reasonable way it could survive beyond the brain unless it could somehow be downloaded to another mechanical organism before the brain wastes away.

 

It sucks dealing with death after deconverting. I went through a period of mourning for a while when I realized there would be no afterlife for me. Then I lost my best friend to a brain tumor, all my grandparents and a few other friends and relatives since. Knowing all you have are their memories isn't pleasant, but life goes on and the pain doesn't last forever.

[Tealeaf]

Christian dualism is such bullshit. There's another plain of existence....but it is completely separate from us.....but we can still talk and speculate about it or know it exists. Please....

 

Consciousness is a product of the physical world. It is a particular arrangement of the physical world and one's particular physical arrangement of brain matter can be no other's.

 

There are verifiable things to consider as already noted. No one ever comes back from brain death. NDEs aren't actually death. Nothing is percieved to have 'happened' before birth. These things all point to the glarring reality that yes, this is all we get.

 

I think having a hard time accepting it actually comes from being duped from early on into trying to not accept it. When you think about why there are any good reasons not to accept death, you find there aren't any. Not accepting death is like stepping infront of the speeding bus half a second away from you and expecting it to stop. Except this scam of unacceptance lasts a lifetime.... I've never been religious so I've never been coaxed (like a child) into to not accepting death. From being old enough to communicate on these terms I've always been told and made aware of the realities of death. Basically 'You are going to die one day and there's nothing you can do about it.' When you're really young this can be a bit scary initially, but after a day or so, riding bikes and playing manhunt resumes it's importance, while reality remains intact in the underworkings.

 

Telling kids there's an afterlife is discusting abuse to me. Why do it? When grandma dies and junior asks where she went, what is so wrong with just telling it like it is? And what is someone going to do being upset that there is no afterlife? Kill themselves?? It's the completely unnecessary bullshitting about afterlives to kids that makes me angry. Because they grow up with that running in the back of their mind, and end up with the struggles I see many with here. Or worse, continue to cheapen life and defend this childlike nonsense as "adults."

 

I think that if everyone were allowed to learn the reality of death early on the world would be a MUCH better place. Mourn your losses but remember that their memories are an arrangement in your brain created by their presence that will always be will you. If that arrangement made you happy, then they live once more every time you smile in their memory.

[aviator]

The question I have about the "life is all chance, this is all you will ever know" theory is - what makes me, me... and what makes you, you? Why should I be conscious in this particular body and not someone else's? Why should I have interests that others don't? Why should I be alive now and not in 500 years time? Why do people struggle with addictions? I can't help but think that the circumstances we go through in life could be to learn lessons. I have no proof of this thought pattern/theory of course, but it's nice to think that life is for a reason and not just by chance.

[Deva]

I love those kind of questions, aviator. What exactly is a "person"? How is it possible that this person could be here one minute, and not the next? Alive and present here and now one minute, and just meat (dead) the next? Isn't that strange? Where does conscious life begin, and can it end? Isn't it a continuum? Was "I" here in some way 500 years ago?

[LivingLife]

One way to help getting over the finality of death is to have no regrets.

 

IMO death is final and any aspect of suppositions of continuance are just speculations. Even reincarnation does not pass the sniff test as the prevailing theory is that you do not remember any "previous lives" which is a slam dunk to refute that possibility.

 

It would be great if one could get and extend-a-life and get a redo in 30yo you and with all the wisdom that comes with age. But then we would all be grandparents in young bodies. We are supposed to fuck up and learn, that is the wonder of life and learning.

 

The great thing now is that we do have a digital footprint that folk can read if they are interested.

 

That is almost a more permanent record than any biography or legacy one may leave.

 

Only the likes of Gandhi tend to remain immortalised and there are very few of those folk.

[Overcame Faith]

The question I have about the "life is all chance, this is all you will ever know" theory is - what makes me, me... and what makes you, you? Why should I be conscious in this particular body and not someone else's? Why should I have interests that others don't? Why should I be alive now and not in 500 years time? Why do people struggle with addictions? I can't help but think that the circumstances we go through in life could be to learn lessons. I have no proof of this thought pattern/theory of course, but it's nice to think that life is for a reason and not just by chance.

 

I think your questions focus on one of the core issues when dealing with death after deconverting. Your questions have to do with what exactly am "I." Are we a physical body whose mind gives us an illusion of an existence which is somehow separate and apart of our physical bodies or are we, our consciousness, housed in our bodies temporarily to be released after our deaths? Many people throughout history and today view our conscious selves as something separate from our physical bodies. And those who feel that way are not only Christians, either.

 

I think it is clear that our conscious selves are affected by the health of our bodies. For example, when I am exceptionally tired and sleepy, my capability to think and reason are adversely affected by that condition. Then there are those with more serious physical conditions. The one that comes to mind is Alzheimer's disease. Those who suffer with that disease, eventually lose themselves even though their physical bodies, though they suffer brain damage, is still present. There are brain tumors which can change a person's personality completely. There are even drugs which affect a person's self-awareness. It all does seem to be tied to our physical bodies to some degree or the other.

 

The ultimate question, though, is whether our consciousness survives true death? Since the answer is what happens after true death and no one can ever return from true death, I'm afraid we will never know the answer with absolute certainty.

[Chikirin]

I'm having a really hard time with the no afterlife thing. It's turned my world upside down. Everyone is worthless. I have no way of placing value on anything. There seems to be only two poles, pleasure and pain, which is true whether you're a human or a primitive worm. Ishould have eaten the blue pill.

[LivingLife]

I'm having a really hard time with the no afterlife thing. It's turned my world upside down. Everyone is worthless. I have no way of placing value on anything. There seems to be only two poles, pleasure and pain, which is true whether you're a human or a primitive worm. Ishould have eaten the blue pill.

It gets better with time and as you get older. I am sure at your age I too would have been devastated and my deconversion was at 45ish. Even then I held to a deist stance for awhile.

 

Witnessing the death of both my parents right up there when it happened, I realised, despite their firm beliefs in xianity, they still held onto this life to the bitter end and despite the 60 years of believing that there was something better waiting for them. I think is was harder for them to succumb to death than it was for me to finally let go of the imaginary man in the sky.

 

They both has shitty deaths and I kinda expected that b/c they were so faithful for so long, they would simply go in their sleep peacefully. My dad Alzheimer's and my mom, the most excruciating painful cancer one can get.

[florduh]

Was "I" here in some way 500 years ago?

Even if you were, the fact that you have to ask the question shows how irrelevant "afterlife" assumptions are. Most everyone assumes there is life after death, but nobody can come up with evidence or even a coherent description of what it might entail.

 

If there is a soul, if there is eternal consciousness, if there is reincarnation, if there is any kind of existence after death - how does that impact us? It doesn't, so other than as a philosophical exercise, what's the point of proposing an eternal "consciousness" since even if it exists in some bizarre way, that consciousness is quite obviously not us or we would be aware of it. What value is anything if you are so unaware of it you must question its very existence?

[Vigile]

I'm having a really hard time with the no afterlife thing. It's turned my world upside down. Everyone is worthless. I have no way of placing value on anything. There seems to be only two poles, pleasure and pain, which is true whether you're a human or a primitive worm. Ishould have eaten the blue pill.

 

I went through the stages of grief when it dawned on me too. This too shall pass.

 

In time you will see that what is before you (your love for your friends, family, etc...) does matter even if your time with them is temporary.

 

Death does not concern us, because as long as we exist, death is not here. And when it does come, we no longer exist.

-Epicurus

[nebula]

Consciousness has been demonstrated to be a function of the human brain.

 

It's only an assumption that awareness of one's own existence arises from brain processes. No one understands how. Normal, wakeful consciousness is dependent on the brain but that doesn't prove consciousness originates from it.

 

A TV show carried by a broadcast signal doesn't arise from processes happening in a TV. The TV is only a receiver/decoder of the information. But suppose someone has a theory that the show arises from TV processes and to prove this he messes with the components inside and the picture starts rolling or the sound gets warbled and he says "See? Proof!" All this proves is that the phenomenon of the show playing on the TV is dependent on the TV being operational. You can destroy the TV and the broadcast signal containing the program still exists.

 

Using this analogy, I think the brain is like an old, standard definition TV while consciousness itself is like a high definition broadcast signal. People who have had NDEs or achieve deep meditative states report a heightened consciousness - not the same as normal, everyday, wakeful consciousness.

[Vigile]

It's only an assumption that awareness of one's own existence arises from brain processes.

 

Interesting analogy, but it appears the better analogy here is that the brain works more like a computer processor than it does a receptive unit like a television or radio. http://www.newscient...-the-brain.html

 

One of the many questions that comes to mind when someone claims consciousness is somehow existent outside our brains is where was it during the billions of years life existed only as single celled organisms floating in the prehistoric soup? Why can't we measure it today and have to instead resort to analogies as proof it exists?

[nebula]

Interesting analogy, but it appears the better analogy here is that the brain works more like a computer processor than it does a receptive unit like a television or radio. http://www.newscient...-the-brain.html

 

It's not really what you're getting at but my own personal belief which is not a scientifically proven fact is that the brain sends and receives information to and from consciousness so a computer being the brain and the internet being consciousness is a better analogy than the TV one actually.

 

One of the many questions that comes to mind when someone claims consciousness is somehow existent outside our brains is where was it during the billions of years life existed only as single celled organisms floating in the prehistoric soup? Why can't we measure it today and have to instead resort to analogies as proof it exists?

 

Before I answer I just want to point out that you're asking questions for which I can only give speculations or say "I don't know." That would be like me asking you "how does the brain produce consciousness?" And my only "claim" is that there is no proof whatsoever that consciousness is merely the result of brain processes. It's a good, plausible assumption but you're throwing that around like it's a scientifically proven fact and you are by no means alone. Tons of people do that and I do not approve.

 

From your article:

Because this activity only occurred in volunteers when they were aware of the words, Gaillard's team argue that it constitutes a consciousness signature. As much of this activity was spread across the brain, they say that consciousness has no single "seat". "Consciousness is more a question of dynamics, than of a local activity," says Gaillard.

 

Here you have someone "arguing" something. Pim van Lommel and Jeffrey Long "argue" there is an afterlife. But I don't say "consciousness has been demonstrated to be non-local."

 

My TV analogy wasn't meant to prove any positive claims about my own beliefs. It was only to illustrate why nothing from neuroscience thus far convinces me that the brain isn't merely the highly involved interface to non-local consciousness.

 

Now having said all that I will answer your two questions about my personal beliefs, speculating to the best of my ability.

One of the many questions that comes to mind when someone claims consciousness is somehow existent outside our brains is where was it during the billions of years life existed only as single celled organisms floating in the prehistoric soup?

 

I believe that reincarnation and evolution are very related. Maybe we broke off from God as very simple consciousnesses during the Cambrian Explosion and have been reincarnating into more and more advanced life forms since then? This assumes that our incarnations are tied to earth. If we incarnate on other planets it gets more complicated. I don't believe that bacteria have afterlives but maybe. Maybe trees and plants do. Mice absolutely do. Cats do beyond a shadow of a doubt.

 

Why can't we measure it today

 

Because it exists outside of space and time in another dimension and we're not technologically advanced enough to measure stuff in other dimensions.

[bdp]

Death is a fact. Sometimes in life you fuck up and when you do you don't get back what you lost. Deal with both.

[Deva]

I believe that reincarnation and evolution are very related. Maybe we broke off from God as very simple consciousnesses during the Cambrian Explosion and have been reincarnating into more and more advanced life forms since then? This assumes that our incarnations are tied to earth. If we incarnate on other planets it gets more complicated. I don't believe that bacteria have afterlives but maybe. Maybe trees and plants do. Mice absolutely do. Cats do beyond a shadow of a doubt.

 

This is my view as well, nebula. I don't have concrete scientific proof of reincarnation, but there is no reason to believe our planet is the only one that life ever arose on, or that even billions of years ago life didn't exist on other planets in an advanced state.

 

I also see no logical reason to exclude other animals from being reincarnated if we do.

[nebula]

This is my view as well, nebula. I don't have concrete scientific proof of reincarnation, but there is no reason to believe our planet is the only one that life ever arose on, or that even billions of years ago life didn't exist on other planets in an advanced state.

 

I also see no logical reason to exclude other animals from being reincarnated if we do.

 

Yeah, it's possible that life has always existed somewhere because there may be an infinite number of universes and there may be a big bang happening somewhere every one of our milliseconds.

[Overcame Faith]

I'm having a really hard time with the no afterlife thing. It's turned my world upside down. Everyone is worthless. I have no way of placing value on anything. There seems to be only two poles, pleasure and pain, which is true whether you're a human or a primitive worm. Ishould have eaten the blue pill.

 

As others have said, you may find that time helps you.

 

You said that everyone is worthless and that you have no reason to place value on anything. I respectfully disagree with you and here's why. Think about why gold and diamonds are so valuable. It is not because those things are plentiful. Rather, it's because they are rare. It is if your life and everyone's life were eternal that it and they would have no real value. Life would then be like something common like sandstone or something similar. It is everywhere and no one will pay anywhere near for it like they would for gold. The fact that all we know for sure is that we have this one and only life is what makes your life precious and of immeasurable worth. If we knew for an absolute fact that once we die we will still live forever, then your life now would be of mediocre value. But your life and everyone else's life now is worth far more than the most precious jewel. Your life has great value precisely because it may be the one and only chance you (or the rest of us) have to live.

[Vigile]

And my only "claim" is that there is no proof whatsoever that consciousness is merely the result of brain processes.

 

None whatsoever? It's kind of hard to take you seriously when you say this. But perhaps I'm misunderstanding your point.

 

There is lots of proof, including studies on Alzheimer's patients, the observation of various brain functions during brain surgery, etc... It may not be satisfying to you, but there is certainly a great deal of objective evidence here. Meanwhile, there is no objective evidence of a consciousness that lives outside the human being.

[florduh]

Good luck, Vig. Think I'll sit one out.

[ConureDelSol]

Dealing with this after I fully lost my religious feelings in late 2010, I have come to think this:

 

“There may or may not be an afterlife, so I need to live my life like it’s the only one I’ve got and do as much good as I can because people would want to be treated well.”

 

This is an excerpt from my testimony that I will post in a couple of weeks.

 

That's my philosophy on death.

 

This, except add "and if God thinks I deserve Hell for that, then fuck him."

[nebula]

And my only "claim" is that there is no proof whatsoever that consciousness is merely the result of brain processes.

 

None whatsoever? It's kind of hard to take you seriously when you say this. But perhaps I'm misunderstanding your point.

 

There is lots of proof, including studies on Alzheimer's patients, the observation of various brain functions during brain surgery, etc... It may not be satisfying to you, but there is certainly a great deal of objective evidence here. Meanwhile, there is no objective evidence of a consciousness that lives outside the human being.

 

There's a nice article on Skeptic.com from which I quote:

 

"…the ultimate explanations [for consciousness] are to be found in the evolutionary and individual learning histories that shaped the behaviors — not in the brain."

 

http://www.skeptic.c...eptic/08-02-27/

 

The author of this article is basically saying that consciousness is comprised of learned behaviors, words, ideas and images rather than neural correlates. I'm sure he's a materialist who doesn't believe in an afterlife but if he's right, and if non-local consciousness is also a reality, there is no reason why these learned behaviors can't survive death.

 

How do studies on Alzheimer's patients or the observation of various brain functions during brain surgery prove that consciousness is the result of localized brain processes only?

 

If you want objective evidence for my personal belief that consciousness is non-local, I will try. The following account was published in The Lancet which is (according to Wikipedia) "a weekly peer-reviewed general medical journal. It is one of the world's best known, oldest, and most respected general medical journals" (and not just some New Age blog):

 

This is the report of a nurse of a Coronary Care Unit:

“During night shift an ambulance brings in a 44-year old cyanotic, comatose man into the coronary care unit. He was found in coma about 30 minutes before in a meadow. When we go to intubate the patient, he turns out to have dentures in his mouth. I remove these upper dentures and put them onto the ‘crash cart.’ After about an hour and a half the patient has sufficient heart rhythm and blood pressure, but he is still ventilated and intubated, and he is still comatose. He is transferred to the intensive care unit to continue the necessary artificial respiration. Only after more than a week do I meet again with the patient, who is by now back on the cardiac ward. The moment he sees me he says: ‘O, that nurse knows where my dentures are.’ I am very surprised. Then he elucidates: ‘You were there when I was brought into hospital and you took my dentures out of my mouth and put them onto that cart, it had all these bottles on it and there was this sliding drawer underneath, and there you put my teeth.’ I was especially amazed because I remembered this happening while the man was in deep coma and in the process of CPR. It appeared that the man had seen himself lying in bed, that he had perceived from above how nurses and doctors had been busy with the CPR. He was also able to describe correctly and in detail the small room in which he had been resuscitated as well as the appearance of those present like myself. He is deeply impressed by his experience and says he is no longer afraid of death.”

 

http://iands.org/res...ss.html?start=3

 

There are actually a lot of cases in which this veridical perception happens when someone has an out of body experience during an NDE. These reports are pretty objective in that it's not just a subjective experience being recounted by someone who's had an NDE. It's someone who has had an OBE recounting specific events that happened in an operating room and the instruments used, while he or she is either unconscious or has no brain-activity measurable on an EEG due to loss of blood flow to the brain from cardiac arrest, which are verified by the medical staff who were in the same room at the time.