Happenings Newsletter

By Joseph Khasho In previous NDE 101 installments, we explored reports of consciousness continuing during profound medical crises such as cardiac arrest and trauma-induced unconsciousness. Experiencers frequently describe perceiving themselves outside the body, often observing the scene from above. Upon resuscitation, some report conversations, medical procedures, or other details that correspond to events that actually occurred. Researchers commonly call these veridical perceptions—perceptions that correspond to real events in the physical world and may be independently corroborated. What would it mean if a person could accurately perceive the physical world when the body's ordinary means of perceiving it were profoundly impaired or nonfunctional? The implications are difficult to ignore. If someone accurately perceives an external earthly event at a time and from a position inconsistent with the state and location of the physical body—without ordinary access to the brain-bound physical senses—what is mediating that information, where is the perception occurring, and what does this tell us about consciousness itself? THE EVIDENCE - WHEN SUCH PERCEPTIONS SHOULDN'T BE POSSIBLE Two well-known cases illustrate the challenge to a purely brain-bound understanding of consciousness. In a prospective study of cardiac-arrest survivors published by cardiologist Pim van Lommel and colleagues in The Lancet in 2001, upon resuscitation, one patient recognized a nurse and accurately described how the nurse had removed his dentures during resuscitation and placed them in a crash-cart drawer as they prepared for intubation. The patient reported observing the scene from above, apart from his body. More than a decade later, the multinational AWARE study led by Sam Parnia, published in 2014, reported another striking case. Following cardiac arrest, a patient described observing his resuscitation from an upper corner of the room and accurately recalled people, sounds, and activities associated with the event. These cases sit within a broader literature of prospective and retrospective studies, case reports, and investigations of veridical perception. Dr. Jeffrey Long has also compiled examples of verified out-of-body observations at NDERF. Please email us at contact@nderf.org for a link to those accounts. While subjective perceptions frequently occur, the evidentiary significance changes when a reported perception corresponds to physical reality in a way the experiencer apparently could not have obtained through ordinary body sensory-mediated means. FOLLOWING THE EVIDENCE The strongest argument does not rest on such dramatic observations alone, but on the way several unusual features converge. First, these perceptions appear unidirectional. The experiencer reports observing the physical environment from an external vantage point, while people occupying that environment do not report seeing any corresponding physical observer. There is no visible eye, body, or known sensory pathway to the body at the reported location from which those perceptions are being made; the observer is completely unseen. The idea of one domain permitting observational access to another without reciprocal access has potential parallels in mathematical models involving higher-dimensional geometric relationships. Without requiring us to assume such a model explains these perceptions in NDEs, the mathematical relational premise is noteworthy. Second, these reported out-of-body perceptions are accompanied by a remarkably consistent pattern of unique, enduring aftereffects. Dr. Long’s research at NDERF documents well-known, dramatic, and enduring changes that would rationally follow the claims made in NDEs, including loss of the fear of death, greater meaning and purpose, increased compassion, stronger belief in an afterlife, and a diminished fear of living life. These changes often extend into relationships, spirituality, priorities, and purpose and generally persist throughout an individual’s lifetime. That matters because the aftereffects are rationally consistent with the reported content of the experience itself. People who report encountering overwhelming interconnected love often become more compassionate and empathetic. Those who experience continued consciousness beyond the body frequently lose their fear of death. Those who describe a life review or important work still to do on earth often gain greater self-worth, purpose, and place greater value on relationships than material pursuits. Critically, the perceptions and the transformation therefore point in the same direction. And that brings modern scientific research to a very ancient word: Soul. DEFINING OUR TERMS What Do We Mean by “Soul”? The word immediately evokes religion and theology, but we need neither to begin with it nor exclude it. Consider a simple philosophical definition: The soul is the conscious self—the experiencing “you”—capable of existing within the physical body and potentially apart from it: the seat of self-consciousness. NDErs overwhelmingly describe their experiences as “spiritual.” They may describe their soul as a point of energy or in another substantial physical-like form. More fundamentally, their sense of being so fully themselves continues so naturally (thinking, perceiving, remembering) from their normal physical lives that they may not even realize they have died or experienced a traumatic physical change. So perhaps the question is not scientifically inappropriate at all: If conscious awareness can accurately and unidirectionally perceive the physical world from a location inconsistent with the state and position of the body, without access to its ordinary sensory pathways, while feeling fully whole—or even more than whole—are we observing evidence—perhaps even proof—of what humanity has historically called the soul? EVIDENCE, DEDUCTION, AND "PROOF" Science does not require a complete understanding of a mechanism before accepting and building upon well-established observations. Newton accurately described and predicted gravitational behavior centuries before Einstein fundamentally changed our understanding of how gravity works more accurately. Observation came first then acceptance and increasingly precise explanations followed. The same principle invites a straightforward assessment: If an individual accurately perceives an external event from a location and physical state in which the body's ordinary sensory pathways are unavailable, then that perception was not mediated through those ordinary pathways, it could not have been brain-induced. If the experiencer nevertheless remains a coherent, self-aware observer—thinking, perceiving, remembering, and later accurately reporting the living memory of that event—then the conscious self has demonstrated an ability to function beyond the body's normal sensory-mediated limitations. That leads to a proof, a logical deduction based on a simple definition: If the “soul” is the conscious self capable of functioning apart from the physical body, then verified consciousness operating apart from the body's sensory apparatus constitutes evidence of what humanity has historically called the soul—a clear conclusion that deductively follows from that definition. Yet I have kept “proof” in question form in the title because some may not accept the historical definition of the soul. Nonetheless, the absence of a known mechanism or description does not negate empirically supported observations or reasonable inferences from them, nor should it prevent us from following their implications. Extraordinary claims warrant a high evidentiary standard. Veridical perceptions combined with the unique, enduring aftereffects of NDEs provide compelling evidence worthy of that standard. Intellectual humility works both ways: we should neither claim more than the evidence supports nor dismiss its most direct implications simply because they challenge an existing model. THE AFTERLIFE - FROM DEDUCTION TO INFERENCE The remaining question is how far this independence extends. Here abductive reasoning—inference to the best explanation—complements the deduction. Veridical perception alone cannot establish everything we mean by an afterlife. But NDEs rarely end with the out-of-body experience; for many, that is where the journey begins. Experiencers describe enhanced consciousness, movement beyond the physical environment, encounters with deceased loved ones and other beings, extraordinary landscapes, communication and knowledge seemingly acquired outside ordinary means, life reviews, and overwhelming love. They then return with distinctive, enduring transformations often rationally consistent with what they experienced. The question therefore becomes broader: What explanation best accounts for the totality of the evidence? If consciousness can operate beyond the body's ordinary sensory limitations, the larger NDE raises an even greater possibility. Experiencers consistently describe another spiritual dimension or domain of existence and return with enduring changes that correspond to what they experienced. Taken together, the reported “afterlife” becomes a serious logical inference to the best explanation—an abductive conclusion deserving scientific consideration and investigation. Dr. Long has repeatedly emphasized that no single element needs to carry the argument but many lines of evidence work together. The evidential case is cumulative and remarkably consistent—the very fingerprints of reality. If consciousness can exist apart from the body, where does it go—and what does it encounter? That is where NDE 101 goes next quarter, as we explore what experiencers report beyond the immediate physical environment of an out-of-body experience. Coming next quarter: Movements and Encounters with Beings and Landscapes A thought struck me some time ago that seems fitting here: Hope is not just a decision, it's a destination. Joseph Khasho is an NDERF Board Officer and contributor to the Happenings newsletter.