---
title: "Near-death experience"
chunk: 4/8
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near-death_experience"
category: "reference"
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:18:06.795176+00:00"
instance: "kb-cron"
---

=== The Near Death Experience Research Foundation (NDERF) ===
American radiation oncologist Jeffrey Long has amassed a large database of NDEs through the Near Death Experience Research Foundation (NDERF). 835 out of 1,122 people who had experienced NDE seemed to feel an increase in alertness and consciousness although studies proved no sign of electrical brain activity. His second line of evidence studies the increase of accuracy developed by NDErs defining their resuscitation process with a 97.6% accuracy rate. Long documented seven more lines of evidence that all point to realism in NDE experiences, yet not all of them verifiable or defined by today's medical advances and technology. Having such an abnormally large amount (95.6% of 1,000 participants) of those who had experienced NDE proclaiming NDEs as real experiences, he concludes that although NDE are medically inexplicable, they are most probably a real phenomenon.

=== Recognition and criticism ===
According to literature, the field of near-death studies is associated with discovery, challenges, and controversy. Cant and colleagues note that "curiosity about the origin and prevalence of NDEs has escalated as technology and resuscitation techniques have improved". The topic attracts a lot of interest, which is reflected in search engine results, medical literature, opinion pieces and commentary. Kopel and Webb  note that there has been a "burgeoning literature on near-death experiences", reflecting both the naturalistic perspectives of neurology and physiology, as well as perspectives that are not naturalistic. Skepticism towards the findings of near-death studies, and the validity of the near-death experience as a subject for scientific study, has been widespread. According to Knapton, in The Daily Telegraph, the subject was, until recently, controversial. Both scientists and medical professionals have in general tended to be skeptical. According to commentators in the field, the early study of near-death experiences was met with "academic disbelief". Acceptance of NDEs as a legitimate topic for scientific study has improved, but the process has been slow.
According to literature, "psychiatrists have played a role in the recognition of the "near-death" phenomenon as well as popularization of the subject and subsequent research". Kinsella noted that "Growing scholarly interest has followed popular interest in the subject". While there is not yet any academic consensus as to what the philosophical implications of NDE studies might be, the question of whatever the true and fundamental nature of human consciousness might be yet remains both unanswered, and highly contentious. Still, NDE researchers are in general agreement that NDE research is now a legitimate academic field of scientific research, and many recent discoveries in this field give rise to the hopes by some researchers that a "breakthrough" in the modern day understanding of the dying process may be imminent.
Kovoor and colleagues noted that there are some "methodological concerns within many of the prospective studies" mapped by their scoping review. They further observed: "Longer-term outcomes may have been biased by clinical characteristics and comorbidities, rather than near-death experiences, and this should remain a pertinent consideration."  Skeptics have remarked that it is difficult to verify many of the anecdotal reports that are being used as background material in order to outline the features of the NDE. The findings of NDE research have been contested by several writers in the fields of psychology and neuroscience. Criticism of the field has also come from commentators within its own ranks. In an open letter to the NDE community, Ring has pointed to the "issue of possible religious bias in near-death studies". According to Ring, the field of near-death studies, as well as the larger NDE movement, has attracted a variety of religious and spiritual affiliations, from a number of traditions, which makes ideological claims on behalf of NDE research. In his view, this has compromised the integrity of research and discussion.
A 2021 study of 101 patients that underwent Deep hypothermic circulatory arrest found that none of them had anything that could be described as a Near-Death Experience.

== Clinical research in cardiac arrest patients ==

=== Parnia's study in 2001 ===
In 2001, Sam Parnia and colleagues published the results of a year-long study of cardiac arrest survivors that was conducted at Southampton General Hospital. 63 survivors were interviewed. They had been resuscitated after being clinically dead with no pulse, no respiration, and fixed dilated pupils. Parnia and colleagues investigated out-of-body experience claims by placing figures in areas where patients were likely to be resuscitated on suspended boards facing the ceiling, not visible from the floor. Four had experiences that, according to the study criteria, were NDEs but none of them experienced the out-of-body experience. Thus, they were not able to identify the figures. Psychologist Chris French wrote regarding the study "unfortunately, and somewhat atypically, none of the survivors in this sample experienced an out of body experience".

=== Van Lommel's study ===

In 2001, Pim van Lommel, a cardiologist from the Netherlands, and his team conducted a study on NDEs including 344 cardiac arrest patients who had been successfully resuscitated in 10 Dutch hospitals. Patients not reporting NDEs were used as controls for patients who did, and psychological (e.g., fear before cardiac arrest), demographic (e.g., age, sex), medical (e.g., more than one cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR)), and pharmacological data were compared between the two groups.
The work also included a longitudinal study where the two groups (those who had had an NDE and those who had not had one) were compared at two and eight years, for life changes. One patient had a conventional out of body experience. He reported being able to watch and recall events during the time of his cardiac arrest. His claims were confirmed by hospital personnel. "This did not appear consistent with hallucinatory or illusory experiences, as the recollections were compatible with real and verifiable rather than imagined events".