Proof - A New TV Series

I've watched 6 episodes now and I like the series. I don't suspect anyone will be persuaded one way or the other by watching this, but it might get some people to look more closely at the evidence that does exist.
I've been positively surprised seeing how they follow the data in the series, but this last episode (the 6th one) was a bit of a disappointment in this regard. If someone's reading this and wants to see the episode before hearing about what's gonna happen, I'm warning you now: SPOILER ALERT

There is this guy wearing a helmet measuring his brain waves while filming what he sees, and then they use that data to reproduce "his vision" on a computer screen from new brain wave data. This guy gets a heart attack while wearing the helmet. And in an instant, right after the heart attack, his brain produces an enormous amount of data and then he dies. They go on talking about how they might have captured the brain process of a NDE and what that might mean. They believe this to be the best evidence that they might get of an afterlife. This is where I get disappointed. I get the feeling that the makers of this series felt like they needed to show us that what is happening in the brain is the cause of NDEs, otherwise they would lead the audience towards the conclusion of consciousness being independent of the brain (and too strongly suggestive of life after death).
Am I wrong in saying that there is no data to support the idea that the brain is causing the NDEs? I have a hard time seeing that Borjigin's Rat study (I haven't read this study, though - just heard about it on the latest Skeptiko show) could be relevant in this regard. Could it be that they presume (without any real data to support it) that the NDEs happen in the first few seconds after the heart stops? Just to keep some kind of balance between the skeptic side and the proponent side?
Up to episode 6. Not too excited about it. Some interesting stuff. Dr Tyler is typical of some of the swines I have worked with in the past !!. They have got the arrogant Dr bit off to a tee.

Dr Malcolm Lewis
I had just watched the season finale and it seems the writers decided to take a stand for proponent's side instead of waffling.

The below link will be a spoiler if you haven't seen the season finale yet ...
I have watched it too. It is and remains a beautiful and thrilling series.
The closing scene makes me look forward to the next season.
And what a fantastic actress the main character is...
Finished watching the last episode last night. Not bad, overall they have managed to use a standard TV series format and keep the attention up with plenty of dramatic turns of event.

What left me unimpressed, to be honest, is a certain superficiality in treating the NDE topic. The protagonist had an NDE, but dismissed it as hallucination. Later she finally decides to investigate the subject and she doesn't even document herself, by reading at least the very basics on the topic or reviewing the medical literature which is abundant.

The whole business of NDEs (especially from the main character's POV) is treated as people "seeing something" while on the brink of death... it really sounds like a cartoonish, 5-year old dumbed down portray of the experience. There is little to no mention of the life-changing power of most of these experiences, nor the hyper-realism and intensity that is reported, the lack of fear, the sense of overwhelming love ... and so on and so forth.

Without touching on spoilers, the last episode was quite epic... but then again the abrupt decision of the main character is too rushed, feeling like a sudden and improbable 180° turn... didn't find it very credible, although it could have made as such without rushing the narrative...

Overall it's a 7 out of 10, for me. Maybe we'll see more in a second season?
Last edited:
Bruce Greyson, in a recent keynote talk for IANDS, actually showed a way to quantify "realer than real" in research. NDEs do show up in the data as "realer than real" based on analysis of how they are remembered.
Bruce Greyson, in a recent keynote talk for IANDS, actually showed a way to quantify "realer than real" in research. NDEs do show up in the data as "realer than real" based on analysis of how they are remembered.
Interesting, is the keynote available publicly?
From Bruce Greyson's 2015 IANDS Keynote talk (about 25 minutes in):

"Most near-death experiencers say that the experience was "realer than real". That's an important thing to know. How do you measure that?

Well, actually there is a scale of memory that looks at real vs imagined memories, and using this scale we can really differentiate memories of things that really happened from memories of things that people just think happened but didn't really happen. And this has been documented for 30 years now.

If you ask near-death experiencers to rate their near death experience memories along this scale, what do you think happens?

They are "realer than real".

So here we have some documentation that NDEs really are "realer than real" that we couldn't have gotten just from the narratives themselves

I've attached the graph that goes with what Dr Greyson was saying.