The Mundanity of Near-Death Experiences

So called 'Near-Death Experiences' (NDEs) are supposed by many to be proof that there is life after death.  For a person experiencing all the classical elements of a NDE, it must be psychologically near impossible to draw that conclusion.  In a situation where they nearly died, they will have had an out of body experience, appeared to pass through a tunnel towards a bright light, met with supernatural beings and/or their beloved dead, felt cognitively enhanced and a profound experience of peace; only to be yanked back into this mundane world of pain and sorrow.  From the outside, the conclusion is far from convincing.  When near death, an implement noted for its ability to find meaning where none exists (eg, to see shapes in clouds, or faces in rock formations) is subject to extraordinary stress, and hence unusual sensations.  Prima facie, the implement will attempt to make sense of such unusual sensations, and that the result should be something like NDEs is entirely plausible.  Does science give any support to either of these intuitive interpretations?

People experience Near Death Experiences when not near death.

Examined scientifically, however, NDEs are not so convincing as evidence.  Mobbs and Watt make this point in a paper from 2011, with their conclusion stated directly in the title - "There is nothing paranormal about near-death experiences" [1].  Mobbs and Watt (2011) is a review article.  I think their most crucial evidence is the fact that 'Near Death Experience' is a misnomer.  They rely on Owens, Cook and Stevenson (1990) [2] (Mobbs and Watt's reference [3]), who showed that patients who believed they were near death while ill or injured, were just as likely to experience 'NDEs' as patients as patients who actually were near death.  The nature of the experiences of those near death, and those not near death were also similar except "patients who really were close to death were more likely than those who were not to report an enhanced perception of light and enhanced cognitive powers" [2].

Figure 1 from Mobbs and Watt (2011)

Charland-Verville et al (2014) [3] show similar results to Owens, Cook and Stevenson.  They report that 50 people with "NDE-like" experiences (ie, experiences that are rated as NDE experiences using a standard quiz, but which were not in fact associated with being near death) and 140 people experiences "real-NDE" experiences (ie, experiences that are rated as NDE experiences using a standard quiz, and which were associated with being near death) were statistically equivalent (p < 0.05).  Indeed, their Table 3 shows there is greater diversity of experience among people experiencing "Real NDE" based on differences in the cause of their coma than there is between the experience of "NDE-like" and "Real-NDE" events taken as a whole.

Table 3 of Charland-Verville et al (2014)

For the record, "NDE-like" events were caused by "...sleep (n = 13), syncope [ie, fainting] (n = 11), meditation (n = 5), drugs and alcohol consumption (n = 3), or other non-life threatening situations (n = 18)."  To these non-life threatening, potential triggers NDEs can be fear of imminent death, whether well founded or not.  Gabbard and Twemlow (1991) [4] recount a NDE induced in a military recruit by the sight of the pin falling out of a dummy grenade that he thought was live.  Indeed, Stevenson, Smith and McLean-Rice (1989) [5] show that many (55%) anecdotal accounts of NDEs in situations in which person who had the experience claims to have been near death, or clinically dead turn out on examination of medical records to be "NDE-like" rather than "real NDEs" [5].  This raises the distinct possibility that the majority of so-called Near-Death Experiences are not in fact experiences occurring during near-death events.

According to popular accounts of NDEs are foretastes of the afterlife, which arise because the person is while near death, or briefly clinically dead, start the journey to their heavenly (or in about 1% of cases, their hellish) abode only to be interrupted by meddling doctors bringing them back to life.  That is a dubious account, even in the framework of a developed theology. It supposed that God is bamboozled into taking the soul to heaven by the mere close approach of death - making poorer clinical predictions than do the attending doctors.  It certainly makes no sense within a developed atheology.  More importantly, however, the popular account is refuted by the fact that many - possibly most - "NDEs" do not occur near death - and that some occur in the absence of any immediate risk of death (such as the example with the dummy grenade).  It is far more likely that these events are explicable in terms of physiology.

The components of "NDEs" can be accounted for by physiological reactions

The final point - that "NDEs" are most likely explicable by physiology brings us back to Mobbs and Watt (2011) [1].  In addition to pointing out that many "NDEs" do not occur near death, they show that the most frequent components of NDEs - awareness of being dead, out-of-body experience, the tunnel of light, and meeting dead people, and positive emotions - all have clinical counterparts, and/or can be induced physiologically.

The awareness of being dead (which as we have seen is not necessarily veridical) mirrors Cotard syndrome, in which living people believe themselves to be dead.  Cotard syndrome is anatomically "... associated with the parietal cortex, as well as the prefrontal cortex, and has been described following trauma, during advanced stages of typhoid and multiple sclerosis."  This shows Cotard syndrome to have a physiological basis, though the precise cause is not yet known. Out-of-body experiences also occur during sleep paralysis, and can be induced by stimulating the right temporoparietal junction. The tunnel of light can be induced by excessive g-forces, or by extreme fear and hypoxia.  The meeting of dead people mirrors experiences of some Alzheimers and Parkinsons patients, as well as some with macular degeneration.  And euphoria can be induced by recreational drugs, and the administration of ketamine.

Mobbs and Watt's implicit reasoning appears to be that because these components of "NDEs" can be accounted for by physiological reactions, there combination has a physiological basis as well.  That, however, would be too strong a conclusion - the reason I judge the first evidence they discuss to be more significant.  However, it is appropriate to conclude that, given the physiological basis of mirrored experiences, we should be looking for a physiological basis for "NDEs".

Conclusion

I have encountered the argument that "NDEs" are evidence of life after death on a number of occasions.  On each such occasion I have relied on the intuitive counter argument.  That has not been satisfactory for me because I know it does not present evidence for its view, but merely a counter-hypothesis backed by a generalized world view.  I have not sort more, because the alternative explanation is no better - and often worse because it often conflicts in detail with the purported world view of those who present it as evidence.  A Christian, for example, can consistently claim that "NDEs" are visions of the afterlife; but cannot consistently claim them to be experiences of the afterlife without attributing significant levels of ignorance to God.  But whether treated as visions or actual experiences of the afterlife - the paranormal interpretation of "NDEs" is just a theory unsupported by empirical facts.

While researching another topic, I came across Mobbs and Watt; and found it interesting because it shows the intuitive argument for the mundanity of "NDEs" to have positive scientific evidence.  I thought that was interesting, and worth reporting.  However, I was wary (as non-experts should be) of being persuaded by a paper that was not supported by other research.  My brief survey of the literature convinces me, and I hope, convinces you, that Mobbs and Watt's position is supported by other research and that while a full scientific explanation of "NDEs" is not yet available, the evidence suggests it will be forthcoming.

References

[1]  Mobbs and Watt 2011, "There is nothing paranormal about near-death experiences", Trends in Cognitive Sciences, October 2011, Vol.15, No.10
https://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/45402560/Trends_20Cogn_20Sci_20Regul_20Ed_202011_20Mobbs.pdf

[2]  Owens, Cook and Stevenson (1990), "Features of "near-death experience" in relation to whether or not patients were near death", The Lancet Volume 336, Issue 8724, 10 November 1990
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/014067369092780L

[3]   Charland-Verville et al (2014), "Near-death experiences in non-life-threatening events and coma of different etiologies", Front. Hum. Neurosci., 27 May 2014
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnhum.2014.00203/full

[4]  Gabbards and Twemlow (1991), "Do "Near-Death Experiences" Occur Only Near Death?- Revisited", Journal of Near-Death Studies, 10(1) Fall 1991
http://newdualism.org/nde-papers/Gabbard/Gabbard-Journal%20of%20Near-Death%20Studies_1991-10-41-47.pdf 

[5]  Stevenson, Cook and Mclean-Rice (1989), "Are persons reporting "Near-Death Experiences really near death? A study of Medical Records", Omega, Vol. 20(1) 45-54, 1989-90
https://med.virginia.edu/perceptual-studies/wp-content/uploads/sites/360/2018/06/Stevenson-Omega-201-45-54-1989-90.pdf