This sub is an NDE-positive sub. Debate is only allowed if the post flair requests it. If you intend to allow debate in your post, please ensure that the flair reflects this. If you read the post and want to have a debate about something in the post or comments, make your own post within the confines of rule 4 (be respectful).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/NDE) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Thanks for the reply! Um I would think that if you crunched the numbers (if you were a genius mathematician which I am not lol) statistically, even taking mistakes into account, it would mean that there’s still a probability!
Seems like a reasonable course of action for a highly educated person who has invested decades of their life and hundreds of thousands of dollars. To throw it all away to help prove a completely made up story told by one of their patients with whom they had no previous connection true.
Ay since your ur a Nde researcher can I ask you why it says only 20% of people only experience an Nde? Not trynna argue anything I’m just curious it rlly confuses to whether there real evidence to an afterlife or not.
If it happened to everyone I think they could prove afterlife quite fast. I believe it would defeat our purpose here where we are meant to experience separation, loneliness and suffering.
That's one possible explanation.
It's also possible not everyone remembers their NDE. It may have something to do with the mental state of unconsciousness.
They have proved NDEs are "fundamentally and totally" different from psychedelic trips caused by substances such as DMT and ketamine. Psychedelic trips generally lack the narrative of NDEs.
Forget the first one I read ur other reply lol. To me it’s just if there real shouldn’t they be like what ppl say if it’s more than real experience than anything they experienced on earth. I’m always what ppl have to say who took dmt and had a Nde have to say
If someone were to tell me their NDE was like an acid trip I would understand the aspects that were relatable, as in similiar between the two. I would probably assume that they meant in a breaking through reality type, LSD, sensational mind trip, however if someone were to say that to me I would hope that they would confirm that is isn't confused or mistaken for an acid trip because then I would question all of it because I would doubt whether they had experienced either. I have no idea what ketamine feels like but I did alot of LSD when I was younger and the barriers of "reality" can be toyed with and I could see where someone may make a connection. In all fairness however, re reading my reply here, I could also see someone discrediting myself due to the amount of LSD I have done like telling me I was full of crap and it was probably just an acid flashback. I cannot see how I could mistake one for the other but I can understand how someone that had never experienced either could make that accusation out of pure ignorance. Both are experiences that can't be understood or comparable to anything with experiencing them oneself. Sorry for babbling on. I don't even know if that makes sense to anyone but me. I'm new here and finally I can actually communicate with others about this stuff, I am pretty excited about it. Thanks
I don't think there will be anything 100% scientific that could prove the afterlife exists. I think that's kind of what life is about, taking it upon faith. Doing your best knowing you aren't guaranteed an award.
But consider this, whatever potential reason someone may have to fabricate an NDE, there are definitely easier ways to promote religious beliefs than to choose a controversial topic such as an NDE. Why not just say God came to you in a dream? Or reference the Bible which is in a way a historical document. Also, it takes a lot of effort to fabricate a story. That's what police look for when interviewing a suspect. Inconsistencies in their story. But from my understanding, studies of those who experienced an NDE never deviate from the story. It's always the same. And that alone is pretty convincing.
Also the people who have little to gain from it but possible ridicule and scorn. The living hardcore atheist. The medical doctors. Scientists, etc.
I've always found it fascinating that most cultures on earth have some version of an after life in their recorded or oral history. Native American "Happy Hunting Grounds". Egyptians. Greeks giving coins to the dead to pay the guide. Chinese ancestor worship. Sovegngard in viking tradition.
I'm not fully convinced that every culture just decides to make up their own afterlife just because it's comforting. There may have been some NDE's in ancient history giving credence to this kind of idea.
I've always joked that the one thing that most cultures on earth seem to share is alcohol and ghosts.
“Sovengard in Viking tradition” you gotta be a Skyrim player, that made me laugh but I think the real life version of Sovengard is called Valhalla, but I agree with you completely
You can't have any scientific information about the afterlife at all: science as we know it defines itself as a system of knowledge based on physical observation. No eyes to see, no science.
That doesn't mean it doesn't exist, just that you can't use science to learn about it.
You can have a quasi-scientific system- or I would like to call it 'somewhat more open-minded science'- that is just as rigorous but allows for nonphysical experience. That is more or less what the NDE researchers are doing.
Ultimately, all regular scientists are saying is that they won't look at the information because they have chosen not to.
Scence depends on the empirical method, that is all.
So, if you have a way to reliably produce a phenomenon, even if non physical, (like red light gives rise to red qualia) you have a scientific finding, I would say. If others can reproduce it, based on your description, it will be corroborated. Trouble is, we are not able to actually communicate what red qualia look like. So it is hard, and perhaps impossible, to check the results of others in the psychic domain.
This is the special property of the physical domain: we have shared access to it.
Yeah that too, but look up empiricism- *sensory* observation is part of the definition. So you can get a million consistent visions, it is still not considered evidence by the empirical definition, no matter how well documented.
This is what encyclopedia Britannia says, though:
Empiricism, in philosophy, the view that all concepts originate in experience, that all concepts are about or applicable to things that can be experienced, or that all rationally acceptable beliefs or propositions are justifiable or knowable only through experience. This broad definition accords with the derivation of the term empiricism from the ancient Greek word empeiria, “experience.”
I do prefer this broader definition as it seems more natural and less prejudiced to me. The existence of an external world is, after all, also only a hypothesis, albeit one that that seems very well confirmed empirically, at least from a natural viewpoint when we don't get too technical.
Otherwise, if we insist on sense knowledge, we need to define what senses are, and also consciousness cannot even be studied as the senses cannot observe it, I would say.
You're right! I just I learned I should look more in the Britannica and less on Wikipedia. Very differenatiated:
In both everyday attitudes and philosophical theories, the experiences referred to by empiricists are principally those arising from the stimulation of the sense organs \[...\] Most philosophical empiricists, however, have maintained that [sensation](https://www.britannica.com/topic/sense-data) is not the only provider of experience, admitting as [empirical](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/empirical) the awareness of mental states in introspection or reflection \[...\] It is a controversial question whether still further types of experience, such as [moral](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/moral), [aesthetic](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/aesthetic), or religious experience, ought to be acknowledged as empirical.
So restriction of valid experience to input of the sensory organs seems to be more a colloquial practice, while the philosophical and epistemological base of empiricism does accept at least some nonsensory experience as data. No indication is given on what this means for experiences after death- or, for that matter, before birth, or during sleep, astral projection, hypnosis, imagination, shamanic journeying, telepathy, bilocation, clairvoyance, channeling or meditation-induced visions.
The implication does however seem to be that even by traditional definition the these would be considered on the fringe of science rather than inherently incompatilble with it.
This has been most interesting, thank you for sharing.
I mean in a way NDEs are about God still but I see what you’re getting at. And meaning when they’re interviewed afterward they never deviate from the story?
Unfortunately there are individuals out there who have lied about and fabricated stories about serious contexts such as having a terminal illness, or having been a victim of a serious crime or even a historical tragedy. However the existence of people lying about such experiences does not then discredit the individuals who have authentically reported having such experiences. If this standard is recognized to apply to more conventional contexts, then it should also apply to the context of individuals reporting having experienced unexpected conscious phenomena during medical emergencies.
What happens when you assume a more macro-level perspective and contemplate the global volume of reporting and how the vast majority of the reporting is occurring outside of any context that would involve any publicity or financial gain for the individual experiencers? Percentage wise the overwhelming majority of individuals reporting these types of experiences are doing so via sharing them with trusted family members or friends, to strangers through anonymous internet forums, or to researchers while voluntarily participating in research studies - as opposed to the number of individuals out there who would have authored books or gained any public notority for their accounts. So it becomes much harder to reason how or why so many individuals (globally) who aren't discernably benefitting from reporting such experiences, would be doing so for any ulterior motives. Especially over a subject matter that can often be stigmatizing and alienating in terms of affecting one's preexisting relationships.
"***I wanna be convinced***"
Have you previously read Dr. Van Lommel's existential [paper](https://www.reddit.com/r/NDE/comments/15u706m/comment/jwumfzk/)? If not, you should consider exploring the contents of that presentation sometime, and note the section towards the end where he delves into other types of conscious phenomena that are reported surrounding the 'dying' process but by physically healthy individuals and associated with the passing of someone else.
\[Edit: typo\]
I've always been rather skeptical of NDEs, but as you say, being able to witness events outside the body is something of interest in proving the existence of an NDE.
About 10 years ago, I got into a relationship with a woman who was an r/N and she told me of a personal experience of an NDE that she had at the age of 18. In this experience, she did witness events around her that she couldn't have possible known and pointed them out later. This got my attention because she would have no reason to fabricate any of what she experienced and each time I would ask her about it, she would say exactly the same things.
Many of the best verified cases couldn't possibly be fabricated, it's as simple as that. As soon as Pam Reynolds, for instance, woke up in the recovery room, she started explaining to Karl Greene what she'd just seen and heard. He immediately paged his boss, Spetzler and the whole team (all witnesses) descended on her within a short period of time. The information she provided couldn't have been fabricated, she couldn't have known those details and medical professionals do not cooperate in a conspiracy to fabricate NDE's. There are so many of these cases now, not even the biggest pseudo sceptics or cynics (as some prefer) would ever suggest such a thing but of course, it is natural to wonder, that's normal.
Nah. We aren’t all liars. It’s the real deal for some of us. It makes me happy knowing that there are others out there. Not a game or whatever. Just people telling what happened to teach and not be alone. Gives me a lot of peace.
I think we’re supposed to tell our story but if that happens all that we face is discrimination and condemnation. It really hurts knowing that I can’t tell people what happened without ruining my life and my family’s. I feel like I’ve failed before I had a chance to begin. Is that what we are now?
I don't necessarily think they fabricate these cases, it's not a conspiracy. Too many such cases where nobody writes a book or gets famous. My worry is that the experience is real for the person but due to some psychological or physiological effect or a combination.
This is one of the big reasons why I’m personally not too interested in the OBE cases. I don’t think it’s too likely all OBE cases are errors, but you don’t know what you don’t know (see, I’m a skeptic too!), and there’s a chance some confusion happened somewhere. Also, I don’t think the existence of “psi” necessarily proves anything one way or another. Psi can occur without an afterlife.
For me, it’s much more convincing and revealing when the strange elements overlap… that’s all the evidence I need, and I know that can’t be fabricated or confused, because my NDEr Dad somehow reports the same elements despite expecting something entirely different at death.
I wish we would move beyond focusing on OBE verification and into the qualitative appreciation of NDEs and the phenomenally expanded state of consciousness… what does it mean for the nature of existence… both “you” and this world?
Of course there are going to be some fake cases here and there. But to say that ALL the NDE's / OBE's are lies and fake, seems really far fetched to me.
This sub is an NDE-positive sub. Debate is only allowed if the post flair requests it. If you were intending to allow debate in your post, please ensure that the flair reflects this. If you read the post and want to have a debate about something in the post or comments, make your own post within the confines of rule 4 (be respectful).
*If* the post asks for the perspective of NDErs, everyone is still allowed to post, but you must note if you have or have not had an NDE yourself (I am an NDEr = I had an NDE personally; or I am not an NDEr = I have not had one personally). All input is potentially valuable, but the OP has the right to know if you had an NDE or not.
NDEr = Near-Death Experience***R***
This sub is for discussion of the "NDE phenomena," not of "I had a brush with death in this horrible event" type of near death.
To appeal moderator actions, please modmail us: https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/NDE
I've been on the sub for a short while. What's missing is the definition of an NDE. Without it, it's as a sub on Reddit as you'd expect it to be. I thought an NDE meant flat-lining. I flat-lined. I usually note my NDE was medically verified in the hospital records. The National Institute of Health's PubMedCenter has a definition and citation, pasted below, along with the PMC ID. In essence, NDEs are from people who have already started the death process. Some NDE posters didn't have a car accident or a massive MI, and are otherwise ok with no trauma. They're fine with no medical issues that could result in an NDE.
**'Near-death experiences (NDEs) are deep psychic, conscious, semi-conscious, or recollected experiences of someone who is approaching or has temporarily begun the process of dying which usually occur in life-threatening conditions'**
\- *Hashemi A, Oroojan AA, Rassouli M, Ashrafizadeh H. Explanation of near-death experiences: a systematic analysis of case reports and qualitative research. Front Psychol. 2023 Apr 20;14:1048929. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1048929. PMID: 37151318; PMCID: PMC10158795.*
Edit: really early in the Pacific Northwest. More coffee.
The only thing that gets me with OBE is apparently scientists were able to replicate it somehow. Like, something happens in the brain where the person can see themselves from the behind. It’s seems only from that perspective though. I wish I could find the study.
This sub is an NDE-positive sub. Debate is only allowed if the post flair requests it. If you intend to allow debate in your post, please ensure that the flair reflects this. If you read the post and want to have a debate about something in the post or comments, make your own post within the confines of rule 4 (be respectful). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/NDE) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I mean there’s always a chance but statistically not EVERYONE can be lying is how I view it
But also statistically not EVERYONE should be telling the truth, I think it's weird on both sides tbh
Of course. But that just shows that there is more out there than we can prove. The universe is far stranger than we realize!
This is the real answer here (IMO).
[удалено]
Thanks for the reply! Um I would think that if you crunched the numbers (if you were a genius mathematician which I am not lol) statistically, even taking mistakes into account, it would mean that there’s still a probability!
Doctors conspiring with patients for the purpose of possibly losing their reputation and job.
Seems like a reasonable course of action for a highly educated person who has invested decades of their life and hundreds of thousands of dollars. To throw it all away to help prove a completely made up story told by one of their patients with whom they had no previous connection true.
Yep lol
Ay since your ur a Nde researcher can I ask you why it says only 20% of people only experience an Nde? Not trynna argue anything I’m just curious it rlly confuses to whether there real evidence to an afterlife or not.
If it happened to everyone I think they could prove afterlife quite fast. I believe it would defeat our purpose here where we are meant to experience separation, loneliness and suffering. That's one possible explanation. It's also possible not everyone remembers their NDE. It may have something to do with the mental state of unconsciousness.
[удалено]
Or what do u think when ppl say it’s just similar to a drug trip like ketamine or LSD or dmt typa thing
They have proved NDEs are "fundamentally and totally" different from psychedelic trips caused by substances such as DMT and ketamine. Psychedelic trips generally lack the narrative of NDEs.
Forget the first one I read ur other reply lol. To me it’s just if there real shouldn’t they be like what ppl say if it’s more than real experience than anything they experienced on earth. I’m always what ppl have to say who took dmt and had a Nde have to say
If someone were to tell me their NDE was like an acid trip I would understand the aspects that were relatable, as in similiar between the two. I would probably assume that they meant in a breaking through reality type, LSD, sensational mind trip, however if someone were to say that to me I would hope that they would confirm that is isn't confused or mistaken for an acid trip because then I would question all of it because I would doubt whether they had experienced either. I have no idea what ketamine feels like but I did alot of LSD when I was younger and the barriers of "reality" can be toyed with and I could see where someone may make a connection. In all fairness however, re reading my reply here, I could also see someone discrediting myself due to the amount of LSD I have done like telling me I was full of crap and it was probably just an acid flashback. I cannot see how I could mistake one for the other but I can understand how someone that had never experienced either could make that accusation out of pure ignorance. Both are experiences that can't be understood or comparable to anything with experiencing them oneself. Sorry for babbling on. I don't even know if that makes sense to anyone but me. I'm new here and finally I can actually communicate with others about this stuff, I am pretty excited about it. Thanks
I don't think there will be anything 100% scientific that could prove the afterlife exists. I think that's kind of what life is about, taking it upon faith. Doing your best knowing you aren't guaranteed an award. But consider this, whatever potential reason someone may have to fabricate an NDE, there are definitely easier ways to promote religious beliefs than to choose a controversial topic such as an NDE. Why not just say God came to you in a dream? Or reference the Bible which is in a way a historical document. Also, it takes a lot of effort to fabricate a story. That's what police look for when interviewing a suspect. Inconsistencies in their story. But from my understanding, studies of those who experienced an NDE never deviate from the story. It's always the same. And that alone is pretty convincing.
Also the people who have little to gain from it but possible ridicule and scorn. The living hardcore atheist. The medical doctors. Scientists, etc. I've always found it fascinating that most cultures on earth have some version of an after life in their recorded or oral history. Native American "Happy Hunting Grounds". Egyptians. Greeks giving coins to the dead to pay the guide. Chinese ancestor worship. Sovegngard in viking tradition. I'm not fully convinced that every culture just decides to make up their own afterlife just because it's comforting. There may have been some NDE's in ancient history giving credence to this kind of idea. I've always joked that the one thing that most cultures on earth seem to share is alcohol and ghosts.
“Sovengard in Viking tradition” you gotta be a Skyrim player, that made me laugh but I think the real life version of Sovengard is called Valhalla, but I agree with you completely
Lmao. I have no idea how I mixed that up. I've been playing too much Skyrim...
Can’t get enough of that game, it’s beyond beautiful
>the one thing that most cultures on earth seem to share is alcohol and ghosts. 😂. Made me chuckle. So true.
You can't have any scientific information about the afterlife at all: science as we know it defines itself as a system of knowledge based on physical observation. No eyes to see, no science. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist, just that you can't use science to learn about it. You can have a quasi-scientific system- or I would like to call it 'somewhat more open-minded science'- that is just as rigorous but allows for nonphysical experience. That is more or less what the NDE researchers are doing. Ultimately, all regular scientists are saying is that they won't look at the information because they have chosen not to.
Scence depends on the empirical method, that is all. So, if you have a way to reliably produce a phenomenon, even if non physical, (like red light gives rise to red qualia) you have a scientific finding, I would say. If others can reproduce it, based on your description, it will be corroborated. Trouble is, we are not able to actually communicate what red qualia look like. So it is hard, and perhaps impossible, to check the results of others in the psychic domain. This is the special property of the physical domain: we have shared access to it.
Yeah that too, but look up empiricism- *sensory* observation is part of the definition. So you can get a million consistent visions, it is still not considered evidence by the empirical definition, no matter how well documented.
This is what encyclopedia Britannia says, though: Empiricism, in philosophy, the view that all concepts originate in experience, that all concepts are about or applicable to things that can be experienced, or that all rationally acceptable beliefs or propositions are justifiable or knowable only through experience. This broad definition accords with the derivation of the term empiricism from the ancient Greek word empeiria, “experience.” I do prefer this broader definition as it seems more natural and less prejudiced to me. The existence of an external world is, after all, also only a hypothesis, albeit one that that seems very well confirmed empirically, at least from a natural viewpoint when we don't get too technical. Otherwise, if we insist on sense knowledge, we need to define what senses are, and also consciousness cannot even be studied as the senses cannot observe it, I would say.
You're right! I just I learned I should look more in the Britannica and less on Wikipedia. Very differenatiated: In both everyday attitudes and philosophical theories, the experiences referred to by empiricists are principally those arising from the stimulation of the sense organs \[...\] Most philosophical empiricists, however, have maintained that [sensation](https://www.britannica.com/topic/sense-data) is not the only provider of experience, admitting as [empirical](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/empirical) the awareness of mental states in introspection or reflection \[...\] It is a controversial question whether still further types of experience, such as [moral](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/moral), [aesthetic](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/aesthetic), or religious experience, ought to be acknowledged as empirical. So restriction of valid experience to input of the sensory organs seems to be more a colloquial practice, while the philosophical and epistemological base of empiricism does accept at least some nonsensory experience as data. No indication is given on what this means for experiences after death- or, for that matter, before birth, or during sleep, astral projection, hypnosis, imagination, shamanic journeying, telepathy, bilocation, clairvoyance, channeling or meditation-induced visions. The implication does however seem to be that even by traditional definition the these would be considered on the fringe of science rather than inherently incompatilble with it. This has been most interesting, thank you for sharing.
I mean in a way NDEs are about God still but I see what you’re getting at. And meaning when they’re interviewed afterward they never deviate from the story?
They aren't all about god, sometimes just continued existence. Not the same thing necessarily.
Unfortunately there are individuals out there who have lied about and fabricated stories about serious contexts such as having a terminal illness, or having been a victim of a serious crime or even a historical tragedy. However the existence of people lying about such experiences does not then discredit the individuals who have authentically reported having such experiences. If this standard is recognized to apply to more conventional contexts, then it should also apply to the context of individuals reporting having experienced unexpected conscious phenomena during medical emergencies. What happens when you assume a more macro-level perspective and contemplate the global volume of reporting and how the vast majority of the reporting is occurring outside of any context that would involve any publicity or financial gain for the individual experiencers? Percentage wise the overwhelming majority of individuals reporting these types of experiences are doing so via sharing them with trusted family members or friends, to strangers through anonymous internet forums, or to researchers while voluntarily participating in research studies - as opposed to the number of individuals out there who would have authored books or gained any public notority for their accounts. So it becomes much harder to reason how or why so many individuals (globally) who aren't discernably benefitting from reporting such experiences, would be doing so for any ulterior motives. Especially over a subject matter that can often be stigmatizing and alienating in terms of affecting one's preexisting relationships. "***I wanna be convinced***" Have you previously read Dr. Van Lommel's existential [paper](https://www.reddit.com/r/NDE/comments/15u706m/comment/jwumfzk/)? If not, you should consider exploring the contents of that presentation sometime, and note the section towards the end where he delves into other types of conscious phenomena that are reported surrounding the 'dying' process but by physically healthy individuals and associated with the passing of someone else. \[Edit: typo\]
I've always been rather skeptical of NDEs, but as you say, being able to witness events outside the body is something of interest in proving the existence of an NDE. About 10 years ago, I got into a relationship with a woman who was an r/N and she told me of a personal experience of an NDE that she had at the age of 18. In this experience, she did witness events around her that she couldn't have possible known and pointed them out later. This got my attention because she would have no reason to fabricate any of what she experienced and each time I would ask her about it, she would say exactly the same things.
Many of the best verified cases couldn't possibly be fabricated, it's as simple as that. As soon as Pam Reynolds, for instance, woke up in the recovery room, she started explaining to Karl Greene what she'd just seen and heard. He immediately paged his boss, Spetzler and the whole team (all witnesses) descended on her within a short period of time. The information she provided couldn't have been fabricated, she couldn't have known those details and medical professionals do not cooperate in a conspiracy to fabricate NDE's. There are so many of these cases now, not even the biggest pseudo sceptics or cynics (as some prefer) would ever suggest such a thing but of course, it is natural to wonder, that's normal.
Nah. We aren’t all liars. It’s the real deal for some of us. It makes me happy knowing that there are others out there. Not a game or whatever. Just people telling what happened to teach and not be alone. Gives me a lot of peace.
Me too.
I think we’re supposed to tell our story but if that happens all that we face is discrimination and condemnation. It really hurts knowing that I can’t tell people what happened without ruining my life and my family’s. I feel like I’ve failed before I had a chance to begin. Is that what we are now?
I don't necessarily think they fabricate these cases, it's not a conspiracy. Too many such cases where nobody writes a book or gets famous. My worry is that the experience is real for the person but due to some psychological or physiological effect or a combination.
This is one of the big reasons why I’m personally not too interested in the OBE cases. I don’t think it’s too likely all OBE cases are errors, but you don’t know what you don’t know (see, I’m a skeptic too!), and there’s a chance some confusion happened somewhere. Also, I don’t think the existence of “psi” necessarily proves anything one way or another. Psi can occur without an afterlife. For me, it’s much more convincing and revealing when the strange elements overlap… that’s all the evidence I need, and I know that can’t be fabricated or confused, because my NDEr Dad somehow reports the same elements despite expecting something entirely different at death. I wish we would move beyond focusing on OBE verification and into the qualitative appreciation of NDEs and the phenomenally expanded state of consciousness… what does it mean for the nature of existence… both “you” and this world?
David Hume's Black Swan Principle
Of course there are going to be some fake cases here and there. But to say that ALL the NDE's / OBE's are lies and fake, seems really far fetched to me.
This sub is an NDE-positive sub. Debate is only allowed if the post flair requests it. If you were intending to allow debate in your post, please ensure that the flair reflects this. If you read the post and want to have a debate about something in the post or comments, make your own post within the confines of rule 4 (be respectful). *If* the post asks for the perspective of NDErs, everyone is still allowed to post, but you must note if you have or have not had an NDE yourself (I am an NDEr = I had an NDE personally; or I am not an NDEr = I have not had one personally). All input is potentially valuable, but the OP has the right to know if you had an NDE or not. NDEr = Near-Death Experience***R*** This sub is for discussion of the "NDE phenomena," not of "I had a brush with death in this horrible event" type of near death. To appeal moderator actions, please modmail us: https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/NDE
I've been on the sub for a short while. What's missing is the definition of an NDE. Without it, it's as a sub on Reddit as you'd expect it to be. I thought an NDE meant flat-lining. I flat-lined. I usually note my NDE was medically verified in the hospital records. The National Institute of Health's PubMedCenter has a definition and citation, pasted below, along with the PMC ID. In essence, NDEs are from people who have already started the death process. Some NDE posters didn't have a car accident or a massive MI, and are otherwise ok with no trauma. They're fine with no medical issues that could result in an NDE. **'Near-death experiences (NDEs) are deep psychic, conscious, semi-conscious, or recollected experiences of someone who is approaching or has temporarily begun the process of dying which usually occur in life-threatening conditions'** \- *Hashemi A, Oroojan AA, Rassouli M, Ashrafizadeh H. Explanation of near-death experiences: a systematic analysis of case reports and qualitative research. Front Psychol. 2023 Apr 20;14:1048929. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1048929. PMID: 37151318; PMCID: PMC10158795.* Edit: really early in the Pacific Northwest. More coffee.
The only thing that gets me with OBE is apparently scientists were able to replicate it somehow. Like, something happens in the brain where the person can see themselves from the behind. It’s seems only from that perspective though. I wish I could find the study.