Dr. Jeffrey Long’s, God and the Afterlife, Science & Spirituality Have Collided |327|

[David Bailey]

I am used to the fact that lately interviews don't actually tell anything about the work done by the guest. I was waiting for the groundbreaking part of Dr Long's study, alas, it never came. What perfectly clear thought is that he has religious agenda, there could be no question about it whatsoever. You can start with the title of the book, which is more suitable for church pamphlets than anything remotely related to research. But that's a minor point compared to the overall perspective of this work which started with the idea of God and afterlife. If he had any alternative in mind he I surely couldn't gather any from the interview.

I always try to avoid the G word because it is so closely associated with Christianity in our culture. However, you have to face it that the phenomenon of NDE's is obviously relevant to religion - just as a study of muscle training would be relevant to sport activities, or a study of gonorrhoea treatments would be relevant to human sexual activity! Certain bits of medicine are of particular relevance to particular human activities!

It is also worth repeating that NDE's don't follow the Christian message - and many churches are very cautious of them - because they are all inclusive - atheists and devout Christians get NDE's and a few get hellish NDE's - again from both communities.

The trouble with God is that it is a concept of the human mind,

Can you name a concept that is not of the human mind?

and whenever the word is mentioned it triggers pretty predictable associations, even in completely areligious people. I agree with K9, Long's religious agenda is very clear here.

I too agree with K9 - we don't want to get too into religion here. However, Skeptiko works by interviewing prominent thinkers from all sorts of backgrounds. That is where the balance comes in. Perhaps you would like to suggest someone whom Alex should invite.

While every researcher can have a personal opinion, objectivity is the pre-requisite of research. That's why in the discussion section of every published article authors (ones with integrity) come up with arguments why their findings can be wrong, as well as discussion of weaknesses of their study. No mention of it in the interview.

There are many points in the interview that got my eyebrows up. First, the mention of the Templeton grant to one of the previous guests: didn't Arquette address this point in earlier thread - that the grant was used for multiple studies? Why is it necessary to keep repeating false statements? Second, continuous appeal to authority. In this respect, Alex, you clearly have two standards: one for the proponents of the survivalism, and one for the opponents. Mitchell-Yellin didn't do actual research of NDE and therefore it is mind boggling that he dares to write a book about it. On the other hand Chris Carter did no research either, but he is the survivalist and therefore his review of the literature and comforting conclusions are correct and the question of his competence is never bought up. Evan Thompson - the opponent - is pounded during the interview, and is continuously reminded that he is not an NDE researcher, while Long is joyfully (it is exactly how it sounded, Alex) stroked along, and the fact that he has no expertise in critical care is never mentioned and corresponding contradictions in his narrative never challenged. In fact, there no contradictions or open questions in his research or conclusions, according to the interview. Case closed. And Dr. Long is welcomed in every church, either conservative or liberal.

I very much doubt whether Dr Long will be welcome in many churches - the whole message of NDE's is at a tangent to Christian ideas, and indeed some have claimed that NDE's are Satanic!

You need to keep remembering that Alex has interviewed a lot of people by now, and it is obvious if you listen to some of those interviews that the materialists didn't put up a very good case. Obviously Alex's initial open mindedness has evolved in time - it is rather like Bayesian probability - if most of the evidence comes down in one particular direction, the end probability moves in that direction.

One point on the results. In my opinion the fact that most subjects reported feeling love points out at the neurophysiological origin of NDE. The concept of Loving God is a typical example of the product of human mind and is mostly Christian.

Well the emotion of Love is obviously not confined to Christians, and as I said before, show me a concept that isn't a product of the human mind!

Love is one-sided, and it's existence implies the opposite, hate, another human emotion. Probably because of that High Power in most religious traditions is non-emotional: Absolute in Hinduism and Buddhism, Allah in Islam, even old fashioned יהוה in Judaism is not the loving type. It's much, much more powerful than that, and feeble human emotions do not apply to it.

So are you really saying that because your subjective view is that Love a 'feeble human emotion', people's experience of love in these NDE's should not have been recorded?

Besides, although Christianity talks a lot about love, it doesn't always seem to figure much in a practical sense (many churches still condemn gays and lesbians - at least if they want to join the clergy - for example). As for Allah in Islam, it seems to fuel a kind of death mania at the moment - I don't see that as very powerful.

So it makes sense when dying the brain synthesises positive emotion to reduce its suffering.

Actually I would argue that it doesn't! If you take the standard assumption that behaviours like this evolved to make us fitter in the battle to survive and reproduce, there is absolutely no evolutionary point in any particular behaviour at the point of death!

Typical example is becoming warm when one is becoming severely hypothermic, some way from life-threatening.

Avoiding danger while there is still time to save yourself does have evolutionary advantage. (BTW I am only arguing in terms of evolution by natural selection here because this is also part of the standard materialist package).

It is my personal advise, Alex, to introduce some degree of objectivity to the shows, if it is to be taken seriously. Long's surname is very much suited for the pun: he is taking a Long shot in his conclusions. All he has established - like all NDE research before him - is that people feel all kind of shit when they are close to death, some of which cannot be explained by the traditional near-physiological concepts. That's it. God and afterlife? Probably worthy for Sunday Bible class, but not for the podcast claiming to follow the data.

I think Alex can become a little too biassed at times, however honestly although some bits of NDE's can be tested, the later stages are inevitably subjective - because the material world seems to have been left behind - but researching what people actually encounter in that realm, seems entirely useful and relevant.

It only seems irrelevant if you take the a-priori assumption that NDE's are meaningless froth generated by a brain on the edge of death.

Don't forget that Dr Long has been researching NDE's for a long time, and like any good long-term research project, you start with the simple questions - does the phenomenon exist, is there evidence that it is not just imaginary, etc, but then you go on to the deeper questions that seem to be opened up by your research.

David

 

[Typoz]

It is also worth repeating that NDE's don't follow the Christian message - and many churches are very cautious of them - because they are all inclusive - atheists and devout Christians get NDE's and a few get hellish NDE's - again from both communities.

This is absolutely worth repeating. NDEs happen to people across the spectrum, just like the sun and the rain, they fall on all. I'd say it was quite common for a person's religious outlook to change as a result of an NDE, but it doesn't seem to imply one must become more religious. On the contrary, some may be less religious afterwards. There's also that loose category "spiritual but not religious" which may be a natural home for many, with or without an NDE.

However there are various websites and youtube channels which focus on promoting a particular religion and attempting to co-opt the NDE to bolster their cause. Unfortunately that means being very selective, and excluding a great many NDE accounts - and even as mentioned, to claim that non-Christian NDEs are the work of satan. That to me is a great shame, it is falling back on the older ideas of fear-mongering while the message of NDEs is love, not fear.

Having said that. I don't get that sort of message from Dr Long. He may express things in a particular way because of his own cultural background, but I don't see him promoting any particular faith. Some of the comments I've seen in this thread may rest more on the cultural baggage which each person brings to the debate, and seem to an extent at least to be projecting an overlay onto Dr Long's work which may not really be there.

 

[Michael Larkin]

...what people experience is tempered by their conditioning -- both religious and personal...

well, that's really the point... I mean, the data doesn't support this... at least in the usual way it's put out there.

I disagree: the one common experience of all NDEs is (for want of a better word) a numinous one; profound, and by all accounts quite different from ordinary, everyday experience. That said, within different cultures, when people use ordinary language to describe it, they tend to use metaphors drawn from those cultures. Even atheists have access to these metaphors and may resort to using them. In a Western culture, these metaphors are largely based on Christianity.

The paper you linked to by Ohkado and Greyson on Japanese NDEs concludes:

Pointing out that some of the prominent features in Western NDEs, such as the life review, have so far been absent in non-Western NDEs, Kellehear (2009, p. 135) emphasized the importance of exploring cultural factors more thoroughly before turning to biological factors. In this article we focused on Japanese NDEs, which were not included in Kellehear’s (2009) cross-cultural studies, and we compared them to generalizations based on observations of Western NDEs. The main differences were the interpretation of the light and the concomitant lack of interaction with it, the image of heaven, and the lack of the life review. We suggest that these characteristics may be accounted for in terms of cultural backgrounds.​

I get the impression (please correct me if I'm wrong) that you think in more or less literal terms of the metaphors frequently used to describe Western NDEs. So, for example, you think in terms of the experience of love being a "done deal": proof that we are loved; that there's a hierarchy of beings in the afterlife; that we really see deceased relatives, and so on. I think we both agree that there can be independently verifiable events during NDEs (shoes seen on ledges, sensory perceptions of conversations and operating instruments and so on), but I don't think that one is justified in extending that veridicality to all aspects of the NDE, particularly when there is some evidence for cultural differences.

It appears to me that there may be some veridical perceptions in NDEs, but that the case for the global veridicality of perceptions is far from proven. Moreover, the veridical perceptions can be described adequately using ordinary language, but some of the more numinous experiences can't, and for those, experiencers reach for metaphors: light, love, angels, God, beautiful gardens, journeys on butterflies, conversations with deceased relatives, the life review, and so on. That these could represent something real isn't to my mind at issue, but I have my doubts whether and to what extent they are literally true -- whether when we die, we'll awaken to a realm in which we'll find a hierarchy headed up by God, and beneath that, angels and all the rest, which influences us in ordinary waking life -- something akin to the theosophical vision.

 

[Alex]

Yes we are. I see three cases out of 22 for the "bright light" category, for an underwhelming frequency of just below 14%. The authors of the study discuss this element on page 6 (p. 192 in the original journal issue), concluding that the bright lights encountered by the Japanese NDErs essentially correspond to the being of light and love reported in western NDEs. But there appear to be crucial differences, in that the Japanese experients didn't personify it, communicate with it or feel loved by it.

In Chris Carter's book, Science and the Near-Death Experience, he provides a table of NDE elements reported by 32 survivors of the 1976 Tangshan earthquake in China. The table can be viewed on page 137 in the link above. It shows a little over ten percent of the accounts featured an encounter with a light. A similar table categorizing 28 Indian NDEs (p. 140) doesn't even list a light as one of the experienced elements.

I recognize the difficulties inherent in trying to make sense of NDE elements across cultures, particularly when there are comparatively few cases from non-western cultures. Maybe when we have a lot more non-western cases to study, the large differences in frequency between some of the corresponding elements will even themselves out. But with the data currently at our disposal, it seems unwarranted for you to assert that "NDEs from all different cultures overwhelmingly experience a being of 'light and love'." That's the only point I'm trying to get across.

Doug

I get your point about "light" then again there are bound to be differences between studies, differences in NDEs (look no further than NDERF for that) and cross-cultural differences as well, but the big picture remains -- we're sitting on a body of evidence that completely changes our (not yours and mine :)) understanding of who we are.

 

[Alex]

However there are various websites and youtube channels which focus on promoting a particular religion and attempting to co-opt the NDE to bolster their cause. Unfortunately that means being very selective, and excluding a great many NDE accounts - and even as mentioned, to claim that non-Christian NDEs are the work of satan. That to me is a great shame, it is falling back on the older ideas of fear-mongering while the message of NDEs is love, not fear.

agreed. seems to me like a very important point. can't lose sight of the cultish aspect of these religious groups (and non-religious groups :)).

Having said that. I don't get that sort of message from Dr Long. He may express things in a particular way because of his own cultural background, but I don't see him promoting any particular faith. Some of the comments I've seen in this thread may rest more on the cultural baggage which each person brings to the debate, and seem to an extent at least to be projecting an overlay onto Dr Long's work which may not really be there.

agreed. I pushed Jeff with some extended consciousness questions and questions about psychedelics near the end of the interview. his responses support what you're saying:

Alex Tsakiris: Isn’t it also true that some of the most recent research that probes that further finds that the brain is actually less active during some of these psychedelic experiences, which would suggest that there’s some similarity with the near-death experience and that it’s not just a brain thing? There is some kind of extended consciousness realm and the overlap that I guess is the part that I’m pushing towards, I don’t want you to speculate on what that overlap is or the extent to which it is or a reality or not, but I guess what I’m really wanting to probe with you because you’re in such a unique position is does the NDE research give us a platform, if you will, from which we might understand not only the NDE experience but some of these other extended experiences too? What are the limits or problems associated with that?

Dr. Jeff Long: Yes, I think that’s a good point. I encourage any kind of research that starts to look at the fundamental questions about consciousness. We ought to be having a lot more research into DMT, Psylocybe and other psychotropic drugs than we do now because it is exciting. There is some question about the overlap in near-death experience, maybe, maybe not. We’re really going to answer that if we do more research. We need more investigation. We need to really compare those experiences head-to-head. Why don’t we have ideally a group of people who have had a detailed near-death experience try some of these psychoactive drugs and compare and contrast the experience? So even basic research like that, so that you would be able to have people through first-hand experiences compare and contrast hasn’t been done yet. But I think the more we do that kind of research, the more we do that courageously and open-mindedly, I think we’re going to continue to push that envelope and learn more and more about consciousness. To me, that’s exciting.

 

[Alex]

I disagree: the one common experience of all NDEs is (for want of a better word) a numinous one; profound, and by all accounts quite different from ordinary, everyday experience.... That these could represent something real isn't to my mind at issue, but I have my doubts whether and to what extent they are literally true -- whether when we die, we'll awaken to a realm in which we'll find a hierarchy headed up by God, and beneath that, angels and all the rest, which influences us in ordinary waking life -- something akin to the theosophical vision.

I don't think we have much of a disagreement here Michael. I suspect words may be getting in the way. I don't think anything about the NDE is "real" other than what is points to -- profound oneness... profound goodness... profound peace and compassion. all the usual stuff every "awakened" person has reported for as long as reports have been kept.

 

[Michael Larkin]

I don't think we have much of a disagreement here Michael. I suspect words may be getting in the way. I don't think anything about the NDE is "real" other than what is points to -- profound oneness... profound goodness... profound peace and compassion. all the usual stuff every "awakened" person has reported for as long as reports have been kept.

Then apparently, I misunderstood you. Glad we are in general agreement.:)

 

[K9!]

I don't think we have much of a disagreement here Michael. I suspect words may be getting in the way. I don't think anything about the NDE is "real" other than what is points to -- profound oneness... profound goodness... profound peace and compassion. all the usual stuff every "awakened" person has reported for as long as reports have been kept.

So what about hellish NDEs?

 

[Sciborg_S_Patel]

So what about hellish NDEs?

Or the ones that insisted a particular religion (Christianity, Pure Land Buddhism) was the only way to escape damnation?

Also that list of Japanese NDEs circulating around seemed to have some weird ones - in one case an NDE involved fictional characters IIRC?

 

[north]

Very much enjoyed reading the transcript :)

 

[Judith]

Enjoyed listening to the interview....would like to have heard more examples. I guess I'll have to read the book to get that information. I'm going to bet that Small Dog hasn't had an NDE or an OBE. I've had one NDE and several OBE's since then. And no, I did not see god. I too am uncomfortable with references to a "god". I am more comfortable with terms such as "numinous presence" or something similar. Since I'm not one that needs convincing of the fact that consciousness continues after death, I am more interested in other people's descriptions of their experiences. As an aside, Michael Newton just made his own transition. His books were a great help to me in understanding my own experiences and in putting them into some sort of context.

 

[Small Dog]

I always try to avoid the G word because it is so closely associated with Christianity in our culture. However, you have to face it that the phenomenon of NDE's is obviously relevant to religion - just as a study of muscle training would be relevant to sport activities, or a study of gonorrhoea treatments would be relevant to human sexual activity! Certain bits of medicine are of particular relevance to particular human activities!

It all depends if God is central or peripheral to the research (I am very tempted to take the word in quotes). If the conclusion of the work is waved as the evidence of God - the agenda is clear.

Can you name a concept that is not of the human mind?

Some are more abstract than others. Some are more testable than others. Check these out: Coronary circulation and its manipulation in ischaemic heart disease. Inflammation cascade in trauma. Consolidation of broken bones. Post-traumatic stress disorder, for less precise example. They are testable and can be both proven and disproven.

I too agree with K9 - we don't want to get too into religion here. However, Skeptiko works by interviewing prominent thinkers from all sorts of backgrounds. That is where the balance comes in. Perhaps you would like to suggest someone whom Alex should invite.

I did, and after the guest mentioned that he knows nothing about NDE Alex lost interest, and the interview fogged up. Though the guest could give a ,to of insight about very important and interesting questions.

I very much doubt whether Dr Long will be welcome in many churches - the whole message of NDE's is at a tangent to Christian ideas, and indeed some have claimed that NDE's are Satanic!

He already mentioned that he presented his findings to thousands of people at churches and was very welcomed.

You need to keep remembering that Alex has interviewed a lot of people by now, and it is obvious if you listen to some of those interviews that the materialists didn't put up a very good case. Obviously Alex's initial open mindedness has evolved in time - it is rather like Bayesian probability - if most of the evidence comes down in one particular direction, the end probability moves in that direction.

I disagree. Many materialists put up a very good case. But it's not the point. I expect equal objectivity from the interviewer towards everyone. My mistake probably is that I expect Alex to behave like a good journalist, forgetting the fact that this is a private website with private views and agenda. Nothing wrong with this.

Well the emotion of Love is obviously not confined to Christians, and as I said before, show me a concept that isn't a product of the human mind!

Are you misquoting me or missing the point? Loving God and Love are two different things: the former is a human concept, that latter is a real human emotion. And the fact that it is a concept of human mind is precisely why it should be treated with caution.

So are you really saying that because your subjective view is that Love a 'feeble human emotion', people's experience of love in these NDE's should not have been recorded?

That's not what I said.

Actually I would argue that it doesn't! If you take the standard assumption that behaviours like this evolved to make us fitter in the battle to survive and reproduce, there is absolutely no evolutionary point in any particular behaviour at the point of death!

Avoiding danger while there is still time to save yourself does have evolutionary advantage. (BTW I am only arguing in terms of evolution by natural selection here because this is also part of the standard materialist package).

This is a different discussion altogether. I could argue that there is a point: for those who survived to tell stories of their visions of eternal life so that others will be less afraid to do risky stuff when necessary for the advancement of their tribe. There are more functions in animal organisms that do not lead to the immediate evolutionary advantage.

I think Alex can become a little too biassed at times, however honestly although some bits of NDE's can be tested, the later stages are inevitably subjective - because the material world seems to have been left behind - but researching what people actually encounter in that realm, seems entirely useful and relevant.

It only seems irrelevant if you take the a-priori assumption that NDE's are meaningless froth generated by a brain on the edge of death.

Don't forget that Dr Long has been researching NDE's for a long time, and like any good long-term research project, you start with the simple questions - does the phenomenon exist, is there evidence that it is not just imaginary, etc, but then you go on to the deeper questions that seem to be opened up by your research.

David

Once again, I only wish that all guests were treated the same way, independently of their point of view. A priori assumption of NDE being proof of afterlife and God is as harmful to finding the truth as the alternative. Long's research demonstrates several things: that people have lucid visions during NDE, these visions share similar qualities and these visions seem very real. The best you can do as a researcher is to discuss the results, consider various interpretations of the data and discus shortcomings of your study.

However, as I said, this is a private site with private views and agenda, and therefore I am wrong when I question "groundbreaking conclusions" of the study conducted by the person for whom the host has sympathy. Fuck it, I am taking all this way too seriously. The view here is one-sided, and the outcomes of the interviews are determined before the start. No argument against the survivalism is good enough, and because very little is known about consciousness one can come up with any ideas about it, never mind how wild and far fetched. Once again, nothing wrong with it. Unless you pretend to be a researcher looking for the truth.

 

[gabriel]

It all depends if God is central or peripheral to the research (I am very tempted to take the word in quotes). If the conclusion of the work is waved as the evidence of God - the agenda is clear.



Some are more abstract than others. Some are more testable than others. Check these out: Coronary circulation and its manipulation in ischaemic heart disease. Inflammation cascade in trauma. Consolidation of broken bones. Post-traumatic stress disorder, for less precise example. They are testable and can be both proven and disproven.



I did, and after the guest mentioned that he knows nothing about NDE Alex lost interest, and the interview fogged up. Though the guest could give a ,to of insight about very important and interesting questions.



He already mentioned that he presented his findings to thousands of people at churches and was very welcomed.



I disagree. Many materialists put up a very good case. But it's not the point. I expect equal objectivity from the interviewer towards everyone. My mistake probably is that I expect Alex to behave like a good journalist, forgetting the fact that this is a private website with private views and agenda. Nothing wrong with this.



Are you misquoting me or missing the point? Loving God and Love are two different things: the former is a human concept, that latter is a real human emotion. And the fact that it is a concept of human mind is precisely why it should be treated with caution.



That's not what I said.



This is a different discussion altogether. I could argue that there is a point: for those who survived to tell stories of their visions of eternal life so that others will be less afraid to do risky stuff when necessary for the advancement of their tribe. There are more functions in animal organisms that do not lead to the immediate evolutionary advantage.


[quoteI think Alex can become a little too biassed at times, however honestly although some bits of NDE's can be tested, the later stages are inevitably subjective - because the material world seems to have been left behind - but researching what people actually encounter in that realm, seems entirely useful and relevant.

It only seems irrelevant if you take the a-priori assumption that NDE's are meaningless froth generated by a brain on the edge of death.

Don't forget that Dr Long has been researching NDE's for a long time, and like any good long-term research project, you start with the simple questions - does the phenomenon exist, is there evidence that it is not just imaginary, etc, but then you go on to the deeper questions that seem to be opened up by your research.

David

Once again, I only wish that all guests were treated the same way, independently of their point of view. A priori assumption of NDE being proof of afterlife and God is as harmful to finding the truth as the alternative. Long's research demonstrates several things: that people have lucid visions during NDE, these visions share similar qualities and these visions seem very real. The best you can do as a researcher is to discuss the results, consider various interpretations of the data and discus shortcomings of your study.

However, as I said, this is a private site with private views and agenda, and therefore I am wrong when I question "groundbreaking conclusions" of the study conducted by the person for whom the host has sympathy. Fuck it, I am taking all this way too seriously. The view here is one-sided, and the outcomes of the interviews are determined before the start. No argument against the survivalism is good enough, and because very little is known about consciousness one can come up with any ideas about it. Once again, nothing wrong with it. Unless you pretend to be a researcher looking for the truth.

This is the most abject bollocks. If any research into the NDE phenomenon which suggests conscious non-locality is religion, there's not much left to research. You may as well behave like the previous guest and do a meta-analysis of why people mistakenly believe they've had a near death experience, and call that research. Religion is practice and ritual based on a shared metaphysical belief system. I really don't know why I'm even replying to this nonsense. Please, do carry on...

 

[Ian Gordon]

I like Jeff Long. I thought his first book was great and that his past interviews with Alex were among the best in refuting Skeptical BS in regards to the NDE research data (as evidenced in the chapter in Alex's book). I also think it's unwarranted to jump to the conclusion that Long has a "religious agenda" in his current book.

I've started reading it, though, and finished the second chapter, the one covering the "God Study", and I do have some problems with it. And I'll preface what I say next by saying my hunch is that Source is a being, as well as a collection/sum total of all other beings, so I don't have any problems from the get-go with NDErs claiming that there is a God or a supreme being and that they have met He/She/It during their NDE.

Long's study involved going through all of the NDEs in his database between Nov 2011 and Nov 2014 that met certain criteria, which came to 420 cases, and broke down their answers to the question: "During your experience, did you encounter any specific information/awareness that God or a supreme being either does (or does not) exist?" The results were that 191 (45.5%) said Yes, 62 (14.8%) were uncertain, and 167 (39.8%) said No. Long appears to conclude that that 45.5% means God exists.

One problem I have here is he doesn't seem to try to break down the specific information the NDErs encounter that brings them to this conclusion. I also find there's in general a certain lack of conceptual clarity and some potentially iffy logic in the conclusions he draws. For example, in the introduction he writes, "Those who report meeting a divine being generally portray God as someone who radiates incredible love, light, grace, and acceptance." (p. 3) Now, even leaving aside the general question (which Long ignores) of whether we are to take NDE accounts literally, or whether some or all of these experiences could be co-created by the brain-dislodged mind of the NDEr, if an NDEr does meet a "divine being" (whatever that is, it's not defined), does that automatically equate with God, the supreme being? Are some NDErs "merely" encountering beings of light, for example, which Long interprets as "divine", and then equates automatically with a "supreme being"? (No doubt there are NDErs who encounter a being who presents Him/Herself as the supreme being, the Creator, God, etc., but what percentage of that actually corresponds to the 45.5% figure?)

He goes on to say, "The fact that they describe these encounters so similarly gives us confidence that they have, indeed, met the same Being." (p. 4). Again, is he sure all of those NDErs are talking about meeting the Creator, or instead some other kind of being that emanated "godly"/"heavenly" qualities?

Secondly, Long ties together those results to that question with the results of answers to the questions of what these NDErs' beliefs are or how they have changed in regards to the question of believing that God exists. But if an NDEr answers that he or she now believes, after his or her NDE, that God exists more "definitely" than previously, can we just assume that this is the direct result of meeting The Supreme Being? If I had an NDE, where everything was extraordinary and transcendent and I was overwhelmed with feelings of unearthly love and serenity and beauty, etc. etc., I would no doubt come out of that experience feeling that mostly probably or definitely that something like God exists, but that wouldn't mean I had met God or had "direct information or awareness that He/She exists".

Long does go into some of the detail and specific words that NDErs use in his database to express their certainty that they encountered God - and again I have no problem assuming this happens with some NDErs - but just with some of the quotes he brings out to make this point, it's apparent that he's not really analyzing very deeply what these experiencers may be referring to. Example: "There is no doubt in my mind God was there... I went from an uncertain belief in God to a certain belief." (p. 43) Is this really proof that that NDEr encountered God? Example 2: "I was speaking with God, so that is my proof of God" (p. 44). Is Long investigating to see how this NDEr knows the being he or she was talking to was God, and not just a being whose qualities correspond to his or her definition of God? (Another NDEr he quotes seems to buttress my point here: "The light that I encountered felt supreme - unending, unconditional, immense love, a force that feels eternal, powerful and creative at the same time, which satisfies my definition of 'God'.)" (p.44) What if that being was an angel, a spirit guide, a more evolved soul, or the NDEr's own Higher Soul?

At the same time, I'm finishing this post and questioning its worth. Are these points meaningful? Who cares if it's about a supreme being or not - there's something incredible on the other side - and it is about love and beauty and existence having meaning.

But I could also ask myself if the somewhat unexceptional quality of this research and analysis does potentially more harm than good in promoting NDE research and its validity - to a wider audience than the already convinced.

 

[Small Dog]

Let me give you an illustration of what Dr. Long has achieved in his study.

When I was a medical student I did eight weeks rotation in psychiatry. It was very revealing and at times frightening. I was shocked to discover that what I thought is the subject of jokes - people imagining themselves being extra-terrestrial creatures, Napoleon, paranoid and deluded in many other ways - actually wasn't exaggerated. One patient, a woman in her 70-s, believed that he was raped by her neighbour... by X-rays that he sent through the radio. It was one of my first encounters with real medical ethics as well. Going through the details of her experience at some point the woman said something so funny that my Prof barely held back a little grin. The patient noticed it and asked: "You don't believe me, do you?", to which he replied: "I think you are telling me what you are feeling". Subtle remark that I remembered forever. Never mind that.

Apparently the delusion of being raped via TV, radio with all kinds of electro-magnetic waves is relatively common among old schizophrenic female patients. In order to study their experience we can come up with a questionnaire detailing their experience. How often, at what times, what kind of radio waves are used, the reasons for the perpetrators to engage in this action and so on. It won't be hard to collect the database of a few hundred cases. It is very likely that after analysing this data we will find common denominators of such experience and will be able to come up with the stats. Maybe we will even be able to discover some system and structure of the Radiowave Rape Experience and the hierarchy of the sources used for this purpose. Will anybody take me seriously if I will declare it the groundbreaking evidence of the phenomenon being real and that there is an evil force behind the phenomenon?

Please, before someone starts accusing me of disrespect - it is not intended. Every experience is real, and I am not arguing about its meaning for a particular person. Similarly, I do not disrespect patients having hallucinations or delusions of psychiatric nature; our job is to understand what's going on and come up with solutions that will reduce or eliminate suffering. My example simply illustrates the point that massaging existing data doesn't make it qualitatively different.

 

[Small Dog]

This is the most abject bollocks. If any research into the NDE phenomenon which suggests conscious non-locality is religion, there's not much left to research. You may as well behave like the previous guest and do a meta-analysis of why people mistakenly believe they've had a near death experience, and call that research. Religion is practice and ritual based on a shared metaphysical belief system. I really don't know why I'm even replying to this nonsense. Please, do carry on...

Before spitting sarcasm you should work on your comprehension: Mitchell-Yellin never questioned that people experienced NDE. He was arguing against the survivalist position. Here is the screenshot from the introduction to his book:



To be honest, I am not sure what part of my post is your reply aimed at. But if the use of the word God is not indicative of religion I don't know what is.

 

[Sciborg_S_Patel]

I like Jeff Long. I thought his first book was great and that his past interviews with Alex were among the best in refuting Skeptical BS in regards to the NDE research data (as evidenced in the chapter in Alex's book). I also think it's unwarranted to jump to the conclusion that Long has a "religious agenda" in his current book.

I've started reading it, though, and finished the second chapter, the one covering the "God Study", and I do have some problems with it. And I'll preface what I say next by saying my hunch is that Source is a being, as well as a collection/sum total of all other beings, so I don't have any problems from the get-go with NDErs claiming that there is a God or a supreme being and that they have met He/She/It during their NDE.

Long's study involved going through all of the NDEs in his database between Nov 2011 and Nov 2014 that met certain criteria, which came to 420 cases, and broke down their answers to the question: "During your experience, did you encounter any specific information/awareness that God or a supreme being either does (or does not) exist?" The results were that 191 (45.5%) said Yes, 62 (14.8%) were uncertain, and 167 (39.8%) said No. Long appears to conclude that that 45.5% means God exists.

One problem I have here is he doesn't seem to try to break down the specific information the NDErs encounter that brings them to this conclusion. I also find there's in general a certain lack of conceptual clarity and some potentially iffy logic in the conclusions he draws. For example, in the introduction he writes, "Those who report meeting a divine being generally portray God as someone who radiates incredible love, light, grace, and acceptance." (p. 3) Now, even leaving aside the general question (which Long ignores) of whether we are to take NDE accounts literally, or whether some or all of these experiences could be co-created by the brain-dislodged mind of the NDEr, if an NDEr does meet a "divine being" (whatever that is, it's not defined), does that automatically equate with God, the supreme being? Are some NDErs "merely" encountering beings of light, for example, which Long interprets as "divine", and then equates automatically with a "supreme being"? (No doubt there are NDErs who encounter a being who presents Him/Herself as the supreme being, the Creator, God, etc., but what percentage of that actually corresponds to the 45.5% figure?)

He goes on to say, "The fact that they describe these encounters so similarly gives us confidence that they have, indeed, met the same Being." (p. 4). Again, is he sure all of those NDErs are talking about meeting the Creator, or instead some other kind of being that emanated "godly"/"heavenly" qualities?

Secondly, Long ties together those results to that question with the results of answers to the questions of what these NDErs' beliefs are or how they have changed in regards to the question of believing that God exists. But if an NDEr answers that he or she now believes, after his or her NDE, that God exists more "definitely" than previously, can we just assume that this is the direct result of meeting The Supreme Being? If I had an NDE, where everything was extraordinary and transcendent and I was overwhelmed with feelings of unearthly love and serenity and beauty, etc. etc., I would no doubt come out of that experience feeling that mostly probably or definitely that something like God exists, but that wouldn't mean I had met God or had "direct information or awareness that He/She exists".

Long does go into some of the detail and specific words that NDErs use in his database to express their certainty that they encountered God - and again I have no problem assuming this happens with some NDErs - but just with some of the quotes he brings out to make this point, it's apparent that he's not really analyzing very deeply what these experiencers may be referring to. Example: "There is no doubt in my mind God was there... I went from an uncertain belief in God to a certain belief." (p. 43) Is this really proof that that NDEr encountered God? Example 2: "I was speaking with God, so that is my proof of God" (p. 44). Is Long investigating to see how this NDEr knows the being he or she was talking to was God, and not just a being whose qualities correspond to his or her definition of God? (Another NDEr he quotes seems to buttress my point here: "The light that I encountered felt supreme - unending, unconditional, immense love, a force that feels eternal, powerful and creative at the same time, which satisfies my definition of 'God'.)" (p.44) What if that being was an angel, a spirit guide, a more evolved soul, or the NDEr's own Higher Soul?

At the same time, I'm finishing this post and questioning its worth. Are these points meaningful? Who cares if it's about a supreme being or not - there's something incredible on the other side - and it is about love and beauty and existence having meaning.

But I could also ask myself if the somewhat unexceptional quality of this research and analysis does potentially more harm than good in promoting NDE research and its validity - to a wider audience than the already convinced.

Great post Ian, I think you hit the nail on the head.

I think, as you and others point out, is this word "God" can mean a lot of different things.

Though admittedly I'm not as convinced whatever is on the other side is about love/beauty and/or meaning.

 

[steve001]

Let me give you an illustration of what Dr. Long has achieved in his study.

When I was a medical student I did eight weeks rotation in psychiatry. It was very revealing and at times frightening. I was shocked to discover that what I thought is the subject of jokes - people imagining themselves being extra-terrestrial creatures, Napoleon, paranoid and deluded in many other ways - actually wasn't exaggerated. One patient, a woman in her 70-s, believed that he was raped by her neighbour... by X-rays that he sent through the radio. It was one of my first encounters with real medical ethics as well. Going through the details of her experience at some point the woman said something so funny that my Prof barely held back a little grin. The patient noticed it and asked: "You don't believe me, do you?", to which he replied: "I think you are telling me what you are feeling". Subtle remark that I remembered forever. Never mind that.

Apparently the delusion of being raped via TV, radio with all kinds of electro-magnetic waves is relatively common among old schizophrenic female patients. In order to study their experience we can come up with a questionnaire detailing their experience. How often, at what times, what kind of radio waves are used, the reasons for the perpetrators to engage in this action and so on. It won't be hard to collect the database of a few hundred cases. It is very likely that after analysing this data we will find common denominators of such experience and will be able to come up with the stats. Maybe we will even be able to discover some system and structure of the Radiowave Rape Experience and the hierarchy of the sources used for this purpose. Will anybody take me seriously if I will declare it the groundbreaking evidence of the phenomenon being real and that there is an evil force behind the phenomenon?

Please, before someone starts accusing me of disrespect - it is not intended. Every experience is real, and I am not arguing about its meaning for a particular person. Similarly, I do not disrespect patients having hallucinations or delusions of psychiatric nature; our job is to understand what's going on and come up with solutions that will reduce or eliminate suffering. My example simply illustrates the point that massaging existing data doesn't make it qualitatively different.

The thought that comes to mind is why does this "rape by radio waves" commonality exist? Does commonality manifest in other circumstances?

 

[Sciborg_S_Patel]

Alex Tsakiris: Isn’t it also true that some of the most recent research that probes that further finds that the brain is actually less active during some of these psychedelic experiences, which would suggest that there’s some similarity with the near-death experience and that it’s not just a brain thing? There is some kind of extended consciousness realm and the overlap that I guess is the part that I’m pushing towards, I don’t want you to speculate on what that overlap is or the extent to which it is or a reality or not, but I guess what I’m really wanting to probe with you because you’re in such a unique position is does the NDE research give us a platform, if you will, from which we might understand not only the NDE experience but some of these other extended experiences too? What are the limits or problems associated with that?

Dr. Jeff Long: Yes, I think that’s a good point. I encourage any kind of research that starts to look at the fundamental questions about consciousness. We ought to be having a lot more research into DMT, Psylocybe and other psychotropic drugs than we do now because it is exciting. There is some question about the overlap in near-death experience, maybe, maybe not. We’re really going to answer that if we do more research. We need more investigation. We need to really compare those experiences head-to-head. Why don’t we have ideally a group of people who have had a detailed near-death experience try some of these psychoactive drugs and compare and contrast the experience? So even basic research like that, so that you would be able to have people through first-hand experiences compare and contrast hasn’t been done yet. But I think the more we do that kind of research, the more we do that courageously and open-mindedly, I think we’re going to continue to push that envelope and learn more and more about consciousness. To me, that’s exciting.

I do think research into psychedelics is going to be very interesting for parapsychology. I do wonder however if Long is underestimating how "basic" this research would be.

Consider the historical accounts - and IIRC some basic research - with Psi potential being amplified by psychedelics. There's also the question of whether NDEs and psychedelics offer the same experience.

I do wonder if NDEs and psychedelics send people to the same place, or if wherever people go (assuming they go anywhere) when they are on DMT the entities there would acknowledge the fact the person had an NDE.

There's also the question of how an NDEr who takes a psychedelic would feel afterword. Would the positive mental transformation be negated?

 

[Typoz]

At the same time, I'm finishing this post and questioning its worth. Are these points meaningful? Who cares if it's about a supreme being or not - there's something incredible on the other side - and it is about love and beauty and existence having meaning.

But I could also ask myself if the somewhat unexceptional quality of this research and analysis does potentially more harm than good in promoting NDE research and its validity - to a wider audience than the already convinced.

You've made a number of good points throughout your post, and I don't wish to respond to those in detail.

But there is an overall question here I think, as to how to place this analysis and its conclusions into context - is is a great contribution or might it do more harm than good?

To my mind perhaps it is somewhat of an over-simplification. However to an extent something of this kind needs to be expressed, at least as one angle on the topic of NDEs.

Compare for example the recent book by by Titus Rivas, Anny Dirven and Rudolf H. Smit, which takes a completely different angle of approach. The latter perhaps treads on ground which many are more comfortable in being able to discuss.

At least one way or another, the more spiritual aspects of the NDE do need to be covered. If Dr Long's contribution may be subject to criticism, that is fair enough. But I don't think that means such topics should not be raised. On the contrary, more is needed. We need to not shy away from or avoid the very obvious fact that many NDEs do extend far beyond the somewhat dry ideas of consciousness independent of the physical body. Sometimes it seems like the elephant in the room, when days are spent debating tiny details, but all the while carefully tip-toeing around to avoid mentioning the weightier issues.