I think the title is self explanatory. I recently just finished reading Ring's study on blinds and the NDE, and I'm convinced right now that it proves that NDE are genuine in the ontological sense. However, I've yet to hear the skeptic perspective on the issue, so my question is more aimed at them. However, proponents are also free to have a take to the question, that way I can also understand better the proponents positions. I'm specially intrigued by the fact that some of the persons in the study where blind at a pretty young age (a few weeks after birth most, due to excess of oxygen in incubators) and it seems to run against neurology and physiology that they would develope the visual areas at all to have the experience they had. The paper can be seen here, for free:
http://kernz.org/nd/nde-papers/Ring/Ring-Journal of Near-Death Studies_1997-16-101-147-1.pdf
http://kernz.org/nd/nde-papers/Ring/Ring-Journal of Near-Death Studies_1997-16-101-147-1.pdf