Even if most reported obe details would be verified correct, it would still be far from concluding survival hypothesis. Perhaps the most elusive problem about consciousness is the cradle of ego(or self, me, existential awareness, the "thing" speaking to me is the one who is typing here while speaking to you is the one who would be reading this post after I would have posted it).
Consider the possibility that our ego is based on some substances inside our brain, when these substances are inactive, our ego would be unconscious, when our brain disintegrates irrevocably, our ego would disappear eternally. In this case, it's still possible that there are other mechanisms inside brain go to collect informations during nde and temporarily cache those informations in brain's "local memory area" without notifying nders' ego, the nders themselves didn't know that process' happening because meanwhile their ego was unconscious. During the process of their awakening, the substances which essentially accommodate the existence of their ego gradually became active, it is within this time their ego read and deciphered the informations collected and cached in their brain's "local memory area", if they had never awoken again, the informations still had been collected and cached there but they wouldn't have read them and later told us, after all, it is when they were alive again after nde, they narrated their experiences, no one would know for certainty if they had never been alive again after nde, where would their ego go.
To say someone flew out of his body to see remote events, is more like comics for children, because we don't know whether our ego would participate the informations' collecting and caching, or what role it would take in that participation, in case it would not participate the process? Maybe something else collected the informations and crammed them into brain without notifying nders' ego, and it is while their ego was recovering from unconsciousness, they read the informations from their prepared local cache, in such a hypothesis, they, more precisely, their ego, had never ever moved out of their brain but just slept within their brain waiting for the next opportunity of being able to read brain's "local memory area" again, and the process of collecting and caching those informations into their brain's "local memory area", has nothing to do with nders' ego. There would be mistakes both in information collecting and in ego's deciphering so we observed both correct reported obe details and incorrect ones.
Ego(or self, me, existential awareness, the "thing" speaking to me is the one who is typing here while speaking to you is the one who would be reading this post after I would have posted it) is the most important part to something we usually refer to as "me", it is not equal to our memories, for example, someone who has been amnesiac and has lost most of his memories, would still feel himself is existing and is the same person before he had his amnesia. While we could record most of our memories into hard disk drive thus let it carry the same memories of ours but the computer it is fixed in can't be us. So ego!=memories, and memories about ndes don't necessarily suggest nders' ego participated the whole process of those experiences.
I would like to add my thoughts about 2 reasons which lead towards my hypothesis, though not strongly:
1. it seems the informations reported by nders were not intentionally collected by nders' ego, this inclination suggests that those informations were collected by some mechanisms which aren't directly dictated by nders' ego, or their will or wish.
Consider in our physical reality, one person is standing in the yard of a hospital, there are hills north of this hospital, a river east of it, a mall south of it and an avenue west of it. This person would like to take a walk but towards to which direction depends on his mood, if he expects to inhale some fresh air then he might take to the hills, he might also either think moist breeze from river would comfort him, or prefer to see a platoon of diverse limousines outside the mall, or want to walk along pedestrian ways on the sides of avenue as this has always been his habit.
But in nde, he went to the top of the hospital building and saw a pair of red shoes, it seems he took the choice determined by someone else without his own reason.
2. a lot of nde reports say their experiences are timeless. This sounds great, because the arrow of time is the increasing of entropy and the asymptote to our universe's inevitable Heat Death apocalypse, by stopping time or denying time we could defy the bleak future of our universe. But our ego or existential awareness depends on a kind of "sense" of time's continuous elapse, our thoughts or memories about happened events must to be organized by something defines "it starts as ... then ... then ... finally ...", after all, when nders narrate the events in their ndes, there still be an order of the sequence of events. A timeless existence of our ego is unimaginable, there must be a time-line to accommodate our awareness, we must to be clear about "immediate past", "present", and "immediate next" to organize our awareness. Maybe nders have been shown a possibility of timeless existence of our awareness, just can't be imagined by non-nders. But it is also possible that when the unknown mechanisms are collecting and caching informations during nde, they somehow drop, lose or litter the informations about time-line thus when later nders' ego decipher those informations they feel a strange timelessness.
There is another possibility, although very vague, that is, even if truth is human ego depends on some substances and a certain relationship structure connecting those component substances in our brain, it doesn't completely rule out ego surviving after death. Because in case those substances and structures are actually subatomic, for example, quantum, superstring scale, or intertwine with hyper spatial temporal structures? As we observed, after people die, large compounds - organisms, cells, neurons or even molecules, atoms, etcetera disintegrate for sure, but in case there are still teeny structures remaining somewhere which continue accommodate the existence of human ego?
As we completely unable to figure out human ego dwells in where, current science can only explain by neuro science, that if those cells and neurons and chemicals are integrated in the way my brain exists like it is now, there must be A PERSON who is like me, but it doesn't necessary to be a ME.
Consider in another universe, which is completely identical to our universe, and there is another person who is another person to me but completely identical to me in every teeny aspects, and his existence could be explained by neuro science, and I'm not necessarily be existent to demonstrate that those cells, neurons, chemicals and field structures could form a person like me, so that doesn't explain the existence of my ego. And the same applys to anyone, when someone researches another person, by neuro science he can explain why this person exists and thinks in this way and acts in this way, but when refers to himself, neuro science can still explain whey there is a person like him to exist and think in his way and act in his way but neuro science just can't explain why this person is not someone else for example one of the other people he had researched before, but just HIMSELF.
So neuro and brain science are intrinsically unable to solve the problem about ego, even after they would have solved every mysteries they could, they eventually can relate "substance structures and traits" to "the phenomenons revealed by those structures and traits", for example, they can relate "a person's neuro structures and traits" to "this person's feelings and way of thinking", but they eventually can't explain why this person is me, or you, or someone else.
Perhaps we meant not to know.
Sorry for my bad English if my grammar or usage is too bad as to uncomprehensible please notify me. Within very limited time of mine I had tried to express my meaning as best as I could but I grasp deviant and erroneous grammar rules and little vocabulary. I really like to discuss here. Thanks for anyone if undertaken my awful English sentences.