NDE common proximate cause: Mays excerpt #17

Suzanne B. Mays

The Mays write: NDEs were first noticed in cases in which the person was close to death or in a state of extreme psychological or physical distress. In fact, NDEs occur in people who are not near death or in distress. For example:

In a case we described earlier, Vicky recounted her father tickling her under the chin when she was an infant. “It made me laugh so hard I would fly up through the top of my head and out of my body. From the ceiling I’d look back at my little body on the couch.” These near-death-like experiences (NDLEs) can occur even when the person is not near death but, in fact, is completely healthy. Nonetheless, they score as valid NDEs on the NDE Scale.

Another case we described earlier was the 10-year-old NDEr’s experience during sleep. Even though she was not near death, her experience included being out-of-body, being surrounded by a bright light, having feelings of peace and calmness, being filled with a feeling of love, wanting to be immersed in the light, having veridical perceptions that she later verified as accurate, and finally being snapped back to her body in bed. Her NDLE would score at least 10 on the NDE Scale.

In a study at the University of Liège, Belgium, researchers compared NDE reports resulting from life-threatening events to NDE-like experiences occurring after non-life-threatening events, such as during sleep, fainting, meditation, drug or alcohol use, etc. Surprisingly, the results showed no significant difference in either NDE content (e.g., feelings of peace, separation from the body, a brilliant light) or NDE intensity between the near-death-like experiencers (NDLErs) and the so-called “real” NDErs. The average NDE score in the study was 16 for “real” NDErs and 17 for NDLErs.

This finding means that neither the proximity to death nor specific physiological or psychological factors proposed by skeptical theorists influenced the actual content or intensity of the NDE.

Thus, NDEs cannot be distinguished whether the person was perfectly healthy or in cardiac arrest: They are the same experience. The results of the study suggest that there is no physiological or psychological explanation that can account for all NDEs. Rather, they strongly suggest that NDEs are a common altered state of consciousness that can be triggered by many different types of prior conditions or may indeed have no apparent triggering event. So the altered state of consciousness in all NDEs—feeling separated from the body, seeing a brilliant light, entering an unearthly world—suggests that there is a common proximate or immediate cause of the experience.

A life-threatening condition may occur—such as cardiac arrest—but if the proximate cause is absent, no NDE occurs. Conversely, a non-life-threatening condition—such as meditation or sleep—may trigger the proximate cause, resulting in an NDLE that is indistinguishable in content and intensity from NDEs occurring in near-death circumstances (35).

In light of very strong evidence that NDEs occur in non-life-threatening circumstances—in normal, perfectly healthy individuals—the physiological and neurological explanations described earlier cannot apply to all NDEs, let alone provide a comprehensive explanation of all the various aspects of the core experience.

What could be the unifying factor that comes to bear in all NDEs? What is common in all of these NDE and NDLE cases?

Nearly 80% of NDErs report feeling separated from their body. Therefore, we propose that the common proximate cause of all NDEs is in fact the separation of the mind from the physical body. Various physiological and psychological conditions can trigger the separation of the person’s conscious mind from the body, or the separation can occur with no apparent prior condition.

The question still remains why, under seemingly identical circumstances, some people’s minds separate from their bodies and others’ do not. Nevertheless, our separation hypothesis remains consistent with the evidence regarding the occurrence of NDEs and NDLEs. 

 

Robert G. Mays, BSc and Suzanne B. Mays, AA,  “There is no death: Near-death experience evidence for survival after permanent bodily death.” An essay written for the 2021 Bigelow Institute for Consciousness Studies addressing the question: “What Is The Best Available Evidence For The Survival Of Human Consciousness After Permanent Bodily Death?” Footnotes are omitted from these excerpts but are in the full text available from the Bigelow website at https://bigelowinstitute.org/contest_winners3.php.

 

Skeptical "explanations"? Mays excerpt #16

The Mays write: Many skeptics assert that NDE phenomena are merely the brain states of a dying brain, which can explain all of its main elements: feelings of peace, feeling separated from the physical body, passing through a tunnel, seeing a bright light, having a life review, etc.

A number of physiological and neurological factors are generally cited in these explanations of NDEs. However, none of these factors, alone or in combination, is adequate to explain NDEs, because (a) the reported experiences bear only slight resemblance to NDEs, (b) many NDEs occur under conditions without the suggested factor, and/or (c) in cases where the physiological or neurological factor is present, NDEs are not reported in even a large percent of cases. For example:

Altered blood gas levels is the most frequently cited cause of NDEs. Cerebral hypoxia or anoxia (too little or no oxygen), as well as hypercarbia (elevated carbon dioxide) do sometimes involve NDE features (tunnel vision, bright lights, sense of floating, brief fragmented visual images). However, their primary features include symptoms not found in NDEs—jerking movements, compromised memory, tingling sensations, confusion upon wakening, etc. Moreover, NDEs occur in conditions without hypoxia or anoxia (non-life- threatening illnesses, falls, etc.) and in patients where measured blood levels do not reflect lowered oxygen or elevated carbon dioxide levels. In fact, NDEs are shown to be associated with increased oxygen levels, or with levels the same as those of non-experiencers. No study has ever shown decreased levels of oxygen during NDEs. Finally, NDEs occur in only 10-20% of cardiac arrest cases where anoxic conditions are very likely to occur.

Other factors that are cited include neurochemical factors (the release of endorphins or other neurochemical substances), and abnormal brain electrical activity (temporal lobe seizure or other abnormal activity).

All of these factors suffer the three shortcomings noted above. In addition, these explanations cover only a few NDE features—being out-of-body, a tunnel, a brilliant light, and so on. However, as NDE researcher Ken Ring pointed out more than 40 years ago:

“Any adequate neurological [or physiological] explanation would have to be capable of showing how the entire complex of phenomena associated with the core experience (that is, the out-of-body state, paranormal knowledge, the tunnel, the golden light, the voice or presence, the appearance of deceased relatives, beautiful vistas, and so forth) would be expected to occur in subjectively authentic fashion as a consequence of specific neurological events triggered by the approach of death. ... A neurological [or physiological] interpretation, to be acceptable, should be able to provide a comprehensive explanation of all the various aspects of the core experience.”

Most skeptics focus on only one or two aspects of an NDE account in order to “explain away” that account. Once several NDE accounts have been rationalized in this fashion, the skeptic claims that NDEs have now been fully explained in purely physical terms.

For example, in cases of veridical information which the NDEr reports having obtained during their NDE, a skeptic would claim that the NDEr actually got the information just before losing consciousness or sometime after regaining consciousness. So, in some of the cases cited above, a skeptic might propose the following explanations:

Before his cardiac arrest, Laurin Bellg’s patient Howard overheard two nurses discussing the nurse-training center located on the floor above and subconsciously incorporated it into his NDE.

After his recovery, Tony Meo believed he had traveled to his home in Florida during his surgery and deduced that the mail would most likely be strewn on the dining room table. He made a lucky guess that there was a Danish office supply catalog there.

In their book, philosophers John Martin Fischer and Benjamin Mitchell-Yellin engaged in this form of rationalization to explain different aspects of four different NDE accounts in purely physical terms. In each of these accounts, they crafted the rationalization to fit the specific details of each NDE.

The problem with such speculations is that they apply only in specific cases but not in other similar cases. These explanations are called ad hoc hypotheses, that is, explanations for specific cases that are introduced to save the physicalist explanation of NDEs from being disproven or “falsified.”

There are several problems with Fischer and Mitchell-Yellin’s analysis of NDE cases:

First reported Reynolds NDE

They failed to explain all anomalous aspects of the NDE cases. For example, they explained how NDEr Pam Reynolds later accurately recalled overhearing a conversation about her vein size that took place during her operation, because, according to Fischer, the conversation registered somewhere in her brain while under anesthesia. But they did not explain how she was able accurately to describe the shape of the bone saw that was used while she was anesthetized and her eyes were taped shut; or how she reported having observed—accurately—that her body needed two shocks to restart her heart).

They failed to validate their explanations of NDE cases with the facts of the case. For example, an NDEr with dentures was able to recognize the nurse who had removed his dentures and placed it on a shelf of a cart, because, according to Fischer, he became familiar with the faces of the medical staff after his recovery. In fact, the man immediately recognized the male nurse on first seeing him a week later after his recovery from coma.

They failed to develop general explanations that can be applied to different cases with similar characteristics. For example, in the Pam Reynolds case, they explained the ability to accurately recall auditory experiences while under anesthesia. But it would be a stretch to explain Al Sullivan’s ability to recall unusual visual experiences—the surgeon “flapping” his arms—with Sullivan under anesthesia, his eyes taped shut and his head behind a surgical drape.

The repeated reliance on ad hoc hypotheses to explain NDEs indicates that the physicalist theory lacks coherence. One of the aims of science is to find models that will account for as many observations as possible within a single coherent framework.

 

Robert G. Mays, BSc and Suzanne B. Mays, AA,  “There is no death: Near-death experience evidence for survival after permanent bodily death.” An essay written for the 2021 Bigelow Institute for Consciousness Studies addressing the question: “What Is The Best Available Evidence For The Survival Of Human Consciousness After Permanent Bodily Death?” Footnotes are omitted from these excerpts but are in the full text available from the Bigelow website at https://bigelowinstitute.org/contest_winners3.php.

Objections to mind entity theory: Mays excerpt #15

The Mays write: Most philosophers and scientists reject interactionist dualist theories, like our mind entity theory, because it would be impossible for a nonmaterial mind to interact with a physical brain. The predominant view, physicalism, considers consciousness and the mind to be purely the result of physical brain processes.

Philosophers reject dualist theories because they are “obscure” and “mysterious”. Philosopher John Martin Fischer commented on nonphysical mechanisms of consciousness:

"[I]t is mysterious how these [nonphysical mental] mechanisms are supposed to work, and, specifically, how they would interact with the physical world. ... Causation implies a mechanism, understanding causation implies understanding the mechanism, and the mechanism of interaction across the physical and nonphysical realms is obscure—perhaps essentially so."

However, there is strong evidence that the out-of-body mind interacts with physical processes giving rise to subjective phenomenal sensations in the NDEr’s mind. And there is evidence that a subtle, previously unrecognized two-way force is involved in mind-to-matter interactions.

Furthermore, the proposed mechanism for mind-brain interactions involves:

A point of contact for the mind to interface with the brain—in the apical dendrites of the outer layers of the cortex, and

A push-pull force at the mind-brain interface—(a) the mind triggers neural action potentials by opening dendritic ion channels to impress mental content on brain regions, and (b) backward propagation of action potentials brings sensory and mental content to awareness.

Three specific challenges to interactionist dualism

The notion that the mind as a “thing” is a category error

British philosopher Gilbert Ryle famously objected to the notion that the mind is a thing or substance that can unite with the brain and body (as a “ghost in the machine”), arguing that it is an error to treat the mind as an object because the “mind” is simply the collection of a person’s dispositions and capacities resulting from brain activity. As such, minds are in a different category from physical objects like brains.

However, NDEs provide strong empirical evidence that the mind entity is an objectively real thing. In particular, the NDEr’s nonmaterial out-of-body mind can be seen by others. While out-of-body, all of the NDEr’s dispositions and capacities are embodied in the mind and are even enhanced—independent of the physical brain and body. Furthermore, NDErs consistently report reuniting with the physical body and existing within it. Therefore, the nonmaterial mind is in the same category as physical objects—the mind is an objectively real thing and unites with the brain and body. The NDEr’s dispositions and capacities are not the result of brain activity but are embodied in the mind, both “in-body” and “out-of-body.”

The causal pairing problem

An important objection to interactionist dualism comes from the original description of the mind by René Descartes. For Descartes, the mind is an immaterial thing that does not exist in physical space and has no dimensions. The “pairing problem” questions how a nonmaterial mind that exists outside physical space can causally interact with a physical object (like a brain). Any causal interaction must occur in spatial relation to the physical object.

In contrast to Descartes’s theory, the mind entity theory holds that a nonmaterial mind is an extended three-dimensional object in physical space which can merge fully and pair with a physical brain and body. The mind and brain are located in intimate spatial relation to one another and exert direct causal interaction with each other. The mind entity theory thus addresses the objections posed by the “causal pairing problem.”

In philosophy, “physical causal closure” states that all physical states have pure physical causes or that physical effects have only physical causes. If one traces the “causal ancestry” of a physical event, one need never go outside the physical domain.

In our theory, the mind is nonmaterial but interacts with physical processes and thus takes part in physical causation. In particular the mind interfaces with the brain at specific points of contact in the apical dendrites at the surface of the cortex. A two-way push-pull force is involved in mind-to-matter interactions. The mind triggers neural action potentials to open dendritic ion channels and senses the backward propagation of action potentials. Therefore, the mind entity theory satisfies the “causal closure of the physical.”

A skeptical philosopher can argue that the mind entity is not a physical entity, that is, it is not recognized by current physics theory. More specifically, the mind entity embodies mental properties, which are dubious as physical properties. In both cases, we respond that the domain of physical reality and specifically the domain of physics need to be extended to include the existence of mind entities and their properties.

We suspect that many philosophers and scientists fear that any departure from physicalist explanations of NDEs jumps directly to supernaturalism. On the contrary, the mind entity theory is hardly a leap into supernaturalism. The insights derived from NDE phenomena lead to a generalized, coherent explanation of NDEs and in-body neurological processes. We will show that our theory permits the development of a theory that extends the current physicalist naturalism to include nonmaterial entities, forces, and interactions.

Robert G. Mays, BSc and Suzanne B. Mays, AA,  “There is no death: Near-death experience evidence for survival after permanent bodily death.” An essay written for the 2021 Bigelow Institute for Consciousness Studies addressing the question: “What Is The Best Available Evidence For The Survival Of Human Consciousness After Permanent Bodily Death?” Footnotes are omitted from these excerpts but are in the full text available from the Bigelow website at https://bigelowinstitute.org/contest_winners3.php.

Mind-brain interactions: Mays excerpt #14

The Mays write: First, there is strong evidence that the out-of-body mind interacts with physical processes such as light, sound waves in the air, and solid matter, giving rise to subjective sensations in the NDEr’s mind. The NDEr later reports accurate veridical perceptions in the physical realm. There is no reasonable explanation for these veridical perceptions except that the out-of-body nonmaterial mind was able to interact with physical processes at the time of the events, resulting in the accurate perceptions.

Second, there is evidence that a new force is involved in mind-to-matter interactions. A subtle, previously unrecognized push-pull force seems to exist when the out-of-body mind entity passes through solid matter, giving rise to the subjective sensation of resistance or increased density in the NDEr. NDEr Howard felt the densities of the insulation as he rose up through the ceiling, the 10-year-old NDEr felt resistance as she pushed through the door, and Raymond Moody’s patient felt his arm to have a “very rarified gelatin” consistency when she passed her out-of-body “hand” through his arm. In addition, a physical object can interact with the NDEr nonmaterial “body,” as happened when the man ran through Laszlo and “wafted” his out-of-body shoulder.

The interactive force works both from the mind “pressing” through a solid object and feeling its resistance and from a solid object passing through the mind’s “body” and causing a distortion of the body’s form. Both forms of interaction suggest a subtle two-way interactive force exists between the nonmaterial mind and matter. Therefore, it is very plausible that the mind can interact causally—not just receptively—with physical matter to produce an effect.

Third, there is evidence that when NDErs interact with another person’s physical body, the mind can interact specifically with neural electrical processes. Raymond Moody’s out-of-body patient passed her hand through his arm and felt an electric current running through it, apparently sensing the neural electrical activity in the arm muscles as Moody inserted the IV needle. Jerry Casebolt tickled the old lady’s nose with his out-of-body “finger” and caused her to sneeze three times. The interaction of the finger with the woman’s nose apparently stimulated a tickling sensation by triggering neural activity causing the sneezing. These cases suggest that causal interactions specifically between the mind and neural electrical processes are plausible, both to sense neural “action potentials” and to trigger action potentials. Thus, it is plausible that the mind can both sense and trigger electrical brain activity.

Most skeptical philosophers and scientists will say it’s fine to show that it’s possible—and even plausible—that the nonmaterial mind entity can interact with the brain, but it’s also necessary to present a plausible mechanism how this can actually work. How does the mind entity actually work with the brain to produce phenomenal awareness?

The mind entity hypothesis is a form of “interactionist dualism” that holds that the mind and brain are separate entities that causally interact with one another to produce awareness. As part of this hypothesis, it’s important to include a plausible mechanism for two-way causal interactions between the nonmaterial mind and the brain.

In a series of experiments in the 1970s, neurophysiologist Benjamin Libet established that one’s conscious awareness of anything requires a minimum duration of neural electrical activity—typically 300–500 milliseconds, up to about half a second. Libet concluded that this process of “coming to awareness” applies to all mental content, whether the content of awareness is a perception, a thought, an intention, or a memory.

Libet’s “time on” requirement becomes important when we consider the mental content the mind generates internally, such as thoughts, plans, daydreams, etc. In order for internally generated mental content to come to awareness, the mind must first trigger neural activations in appropriate brain regions which then bring the internal content to awareness. This seems paradoxical—how the mind must first impress its content on specific brain regions to bring that content to awareness. However, this process explains why most NDErs experience their thoughts to be speeded up while out-of-body and subsequently dulled down when returning to ordinary consciousness. Also, if brain function is somehow impaired (e.g., with alcohol), the process of coming to awareness can be hindered or blocked.

In our theory, the physical interface between the nonmaterial mind and the brain is in the gray matter—the outermost 2–4 mm portion of the cortex, including in all the folds of the brain. The mind entity interfaces with the apical dendrites, the dendritic structures that project vertically to the surface of the cortex.

The mind interface works in two ways:

The brain-to-mind interface (for sensory input) occurs when neural activations occur in sensory neural areas. When a sensory neuron “fires,” its action potential propagates upwards from the cell body throughout the entire dendritic structure (58). When a large number of neurons fire together in a brain region, these “backward-propagated” pulse-like activations are detected by the mind, bringing the sensation to awareness.

The mind-to-brain-to-mind interface (for internal mental content) occurs when the mind induces neural activations in a brain region to impress a specific mental content on it, for example a concept or image from the mind. The mind-induced neural activations are then detected by the mind, bringing the mental content to awareness. The neural activations act as a kind of mirror to reflect the mental content back to the mind.

How does the nonmaterial mind actually induce neural activations? We propose that the mind can alter the molecular configuration of the “ion channels” in the apical dendrites. When these ion channels open, an action potential is triggered in the neuron. The energy required to open an ion channel is very small, on the order of the subtle force of interaction between the mind and physical matter.

In both cases, neural activations are necessary to bring sensations or mental content to awareness. When united with the brain and body, the mind cannot become aware of its own sensory or mental content without these neural activations. This view of mind-brain interactions is consistent with the close correlation of all in-body mental states with brain activity and with Libet’s findings that a minimum of neural activity is needed for both sensory and mental content to come to awareness.

Our proposed mind-brain mechanism is plausible because NDE evidence strongly suggests (a) that a previously unrecognized force of interaction exists between the NDEr’s mind and solid matter, and (b) that the nonmaterial mind can interact with neurons to both sense and trigger action potentials.

 

Robert G. Mays, BSc and Suzanne B. Mays, AA,  “There is no death: Near-death experience evidence for survival after permanent bodily death.” An essay written for the 2021 Bigelow Institute for Consciousness Studies addressing the question: “What Is The Best Available Evidence For The Survival Of Human Consciousness After Permanent Bodily Death?” Footnotes are omitted from these excerpts but are in the full text available from the Bigelow website at https://bigelowinstitute.org/contest_winners3.php.

Mind doesn’t require a body: Mays excerpt #13

The Mays write: We propose that the human being consists of a nonmaterial “mind” that is spatially coextensive and intimately integrated with the physical body. The mind is the essence of the person. It is an objective, autonomous entity. “Nonmaterial” here means not consisting of material particles or atoms.

The mind entity is the seat of consciousness of the person, the subject in which phenomenal experience occurs. All cognitive faculties—perception, thinking, feelings, volition, memory, and self-awareness—reside in the nonmaterial mind, not in the brain.

In ordinary in-body consciousness, the mind entity interacts energetically with the brain’s electrical activity to establish consciousness and support the mind’s cognitive faculties. Ordinarily, the mind is completely dependent on the brain’s electrical activity for consciousness. However, in an NDE, the person’s mind entity can separate from the brain and operate independent of the brain and body.

There are thus two states of consciousness: an “in-body” state, whereby the mind entity is dependent on brain activity for normal cognitive functions, and an “out-of-body” state whereby the mind entity is separated. In the separated state, there is no brain interaction; thus, visual, auditory, and other sensations occur directly in the mind without the physical sensory apparatus of the body and brain. When returning to and reuniting with the body, the NDEr’s mind entity returns to ordinary in-body consciousness.

If the mind entity, the essence of the person, is objectively real, how does it work in the physical body in ordinary in-body consciousness?

When united with the body, the mind entity has a strong dependence on brain activity for awareness. We can see this connection when the brain is impaired: When a person is hit on the head or takes certain drugs or alcohol, the person’s consciousness is also impaired. When the brain activity stops, the person becomes unconscious. A person’s brain activity, measured by various imaging techniques, is closely paired with their subjective experience, so the brain’s neural activations are necessary for ordinary in-body consciousness.

If the mind entity is united with the body in ordinary consciousness, there must be some way that the mind works with the brain to be aware. There must be some form of interaction between the mind and the brain. So how does the mind work with the brain to achieve consciousness? Is there some plausible mechanism?

Skeptical philosophers invariably ask how something that is nonmaterial could possibly interact with physical matter. Surely there must be some sort of “push-pull” mechanism in which the nonmaterial mind exerts a force on physical matter—and vice versa, physical matter exerts a force on the mind. How could a nonmaterial mind entity causally interact with the physical brain?

In fact, there is substantial evidence of the interaction of the out-of-body mind with physical processes. These subtle interactions give rise to subjective phenomenal sensations with veridical perceptions. There are numerous forms of interaction between the mind and physical energies, such as light, sound vibrations, solid surfaces, and solid objects.

The NDEr’s “sight” interacts with light to provide veridical visual perceptions with normal colors. The NDEr’s “hearing” interacts with sound vibrations from heart monitors, fluorescent lights, and human speech to provide veridical auditory perceptions. Many NDErs report that they “bob” against the surface of the ceiling.

Some NDErs report feeling a change in density or slight resistance when moving through solid objects, such as walls and ceilings. As we described earlier, Lauren Bellg’s patient Howard reported that as he floated up through the ceiling of his ICU room and into the room above, he felt the different densities of passing through insulation.

In another case, a 10-year-old NDEr reported an experience during sleep. (We assume this NDEr is a woman.) Even though she was not near death, her experience included many of the elements of an NDE: being out-of- body, being surrounded by a bright light, having feelings of peace, calmness, and love. But most important for our considerations here, she reported:

“I remember feeling a bit confused and decided to go upstairs to talk to my parents, but when I got to the door, I realized I couldn't reach for the doorknob. It frightened me and the desperation to try and get their help grew, so I [began] to force myself through the door. It felt as if I was pressing through a cotton ball. Some resistance.”

Finally, in a personal communication in 2018, NDEr Laszlo from Hungary told us that he was out-of-body following a car crash. Laszlo was standing some distance from the crash site. He looked down at his [nonmaterial] “body” and could see his spirit form. When a man ran past him to the crash, the man’s body passed through the spirit form of Laszlo’s shoulder. Laszlo described the effect of the interaction as a kind of wafting of his spirit form, the way a hand wafts through cigarette smoke.

These NDErs report a subtle interaction between the NDEr’s nonmaterial “body” and solid matter. Their sense of resistance indicates a weak force is exerted by matter as their nonmaterial “body” passes through it. According to Newton’s third law of motion, for every force of one object on another, there is an equal and opposite opposing force. So, an NDEr’s experience of resistance indicates that matter exerts a force on their “body” when it passes through solid matter. We can conclude that there is a new physical force of interaction which occurs between the nonmaterial mind and solid matter. The force is very weak but is nonetheless present.

Robert G. Mays, BSc and Suzanne B. Mays, AA,  “There is no death: Near-death experience evidence for survival after permanent bodily death.” An essay written for the 2021 Bigelow Institute for Consciousness Studies addressing the question: “What Is The Best Available Evidence For The Survival Of Human Consciousness After Permanent Bodily Death?” Footnotes are omitted from these excerpts but are in the full text available from the Bigelow website at https://bigelowinstitute.org/contest_winners3.php.

Interactions with another’s body: Mays excerpt #12

The Mays write: Some NDErs report interacting with another person’s physical body during their NDE. These interactions take two different forms. “Sensing” the neural electrical activity in the other person’s body is one form. For example, Raymond Moody personally resuscitated a woman:

“I saw her have a cardiac arrest and immediately started heart massage. She told me later that while I was working on restarting her heart, she was going up above her body and looking down. She was standing behind me, trying to tell me to stop, that she was fine where she was. When I didn’t hear her, she tried to grab my arm to keep me from inserting a needle in her arm for injecting intravenous fluid. Her hand passed right through my arm. But when she did that, she later claimed that she felt something that was the consistency of ‘very rarified gelatin’ that seemed to have an electric current running through it. I have heard similar descriptions from other patients.”

Moody is the author of Life after life in which he coined the term near-death experiences. This particular case indicates that as his patient passed her nonmaterial hand through Moody’s physical arm, she perceived a subtle resistance as a “very rarified gelatin” consistency. She also perceived a kind of electric current running through his arm, suggesting that she sensed the neural activity in his arm muscles as he moved to insert the IV needle. Moody has heard other similar cases.

“Triggering” neural electrical activity in the other person is a second form. One example comes from 7-year-old NDEr Jerry Casebolt whom we mentioned earlier. He reported that while out-of-body, a German shepherd sensed his presence in a playground outside the hospital. The dog playfully jumped up and barked at him until the Light Being accompanying Jerry told him to stop his “childish” diversion. Back in the hospital, Jerry observed a frail lady in a bed near the nurses’ station. The old lady probably had dementia and would periodically yell out that she hurt, that she was too cold or too hot. The other patients in the area were startled when she yelled out unexpectedly and were agitated. Jerry (called ‘Gary’ in the narrative) felt obligated to do something to “fix the problem.”

“He floated over to her bed. He tried tickling her nose with his finger. Surprisingly, after a few attempts, Gary appeared to be successful. To her, it may have felt like a feather or a chilly breeze, but to Gary it was a finger. Reflexively, it made her sneeze. As long as she was sneezing, she wasn’t hollering.”

In a personal communication, Jerry told us that he repeated two more times tickling the lady’s nose until she sneezed.

“Gary was amused with himself and the [other] patients welcomed the change, at least at some level. Several of them sighed with temporary relief from the noise. ... The Light Being did not approve of Gary’s ‘childish’ antics any more than the incident with the dog. It turned Gary away from the old lady and sternly transmitted ‘That is enough’.”

These two types of interactions between the NDEr’s nonmaterial “body” with another person’s physical body are evidence of interaction specifically with neural structures, inducing both phenomenal sensations in the NDEr and neural activations in the other person. Both of these types of cases support the idea that the mind can interact specifically with neural structures in the brain.

 

Robert G. Mays, BSc and Suzanne B. Mays, AA,  “There is no death: Near-death experience evidence for survival after permanent bodily death.” An essay written for the 2021 Bigelow Institute for Consciousness Studies addressing the question: “What Is The Best Available Evidence For The Survival Of Human Consciousness After Permanent Bodily Death?” Footnotes are omitted from these excerpts but are in the full text available from the Bigelow website at https://bigelowinstitute.org/contest_winners3.php.

NDEs together: Mays excerpt #11

The Mays write: In cases of multiple simultaneous NDEs, two or more people have an NDE at the same time. The NDErs see each other out-of-body and can converse with one another.

Includes Hotshot Case

One case of multiple NDEs happened to an elite 20-person fire-fighting group called Hotshot who were battling a wilderness fire on a steep slope at the top of a mountain in 1989. The group was caught by shifting winds, and they were quickly engulfed in an inferno of flames.

“One by one the men and women fell to the earth suffocating from lack of oxygen. They were reduced to crawling on their hands and knees while they attempted to get back up the hill to a safer area. ... Jake [(John Hernandez), the crew boss,] found himself looking down on his body which was lying in a trench. ... Jake felt completely at peace. As he looked around Jake saw other fire-fighters standing above their bodies in the air. One of Jake’s crew members had a defective foot which he had been born with. As he came out of his body Jake looked at him and said: ‘Look, Jose, your foot is straight.’ ... All of the crew escaped and the only visual evidence on them of what they had been through was a few singed hairs. Jake said that in comparing accounts of their different episodes the men and women were astonished that they had each undergone some type of near-death experience.”

Another case of multiple simultaneous NDEs is described by May Eulitt from Oklahoma. In the late afternoon, May and her two close friends, James and Rashad, were chopping corn stalks for fodder. A rainstorm started, and the three hurried to finish the last wagon load. When they reached the metal gate, James opened the gate, and May leaned over from the wagon to pull him up but slipped. In the wagon, Rashad grabbed May’s other arm just as a bolt of lightning struck the gate.

“[I]t exploded around us with a such an incredible brightness that it felt as if we were being sucked directly into the sun. The next thing we knew, all of that was gone, and we were all in a large room or hall made of dark stone. ... I just felt peaceful, floating along there in the gloom with my two friends in the great, dark hall. The stately walls of this place loomed above us ... I remember thinking that it would have suited King Arthur. It was at that point that I realized that the three of us were united in thought and body. We were holding hands just as we had been when the lightning struck, but our minds were connected as well. Images of Arthur came to me from James and Rashad and I could see the same images that they were seeing.”

In both of these cases of simultaneous NDEs, the NDErs could see and interact with one another. During the NDE, Jake saw Jose’s foot and remarked to him that his defective foot was now straight. May, James, and Rashad saw each other and could experience what each of the others was experiencing. Each NDEr’s out-of-body “body” was objectively visible to the other NDErs.

What do these cases mean? The NDEr’s nonmaterial “body” was seen by another person or animal—by Olga Gearhardt’s son-in-law and by the dying woman’s estranged son. The German shepherd saw and barked at Jerry Casebolt as he playfully taunted him. The 20-person Hotshot team saw each other during their simultaneous NDEs. May Eulitt and her two friends saw and communicated with each other during their experiences together in another realm.

In each of these cases, the NDEr’s out-of-body mind was objectively present to others. In the apparitional NDEs, the NDEr appeared to the other person with a normal physical body.

The NDErs’ vivid subjective experiences while out-of-body coupled with the corresponding objective corroboration of their out-of-body “body” by others demonstrate that the NDEr mind entity is a real thing, a real being. The separate mind entity really exists.

Robert G. Mays, BSc and Suzanne B. Mays, AA,  “There is no death: Near-death experience evidence for survival after permanent bodily death.” An essay written for the 2021 Bigelow Institute for Consciousness Studies addressing the question: “What Is The Best Available Evidence For The Survival Of Human Consciousness After Permanent Bodily Death?” Footnotes are omitted from these excerpts but are in the full text available from the Bigelow website at https://bigelowinstitute.org/contest_winners3.php.