Chapter 15: Appendix C – Answering Common Objections and Skeptical Questions

Throughout history, whenever people have reported extraordinary spiritual experiences, skeptics have sought natural explanations. Today’s Near-Death Experiences (NDEs) face the same scrutiny. While healthy skepticism is valuable and biblical—after all, we’re commanded to “test the spirits” (1 John 4:1)—we must also be willing to follow the evidence wherever it leads. In this appendix, we’ll examine the most common objections raised against NDEs and see whether they hold up under careful investigation.

The skeptical objections we’ll address aren’t mere academic curiosities. They represent fundamental challenges to the idea that NDEs provide genuine glimpses of the afterlife. If NDEs are simply the product of a dying brain’s chemistry or wishful thinking, then we shouldn’t take them seriously as evidence for life after death. But if these naturalistic explanations fail to account for the full scope of NDE phenomena—especially the veridical perceptions where people accurately report things they couldn’t have known through normal means—then we must consider the possibility that something truly extraordinary is happening.

As we examine each objection, we’ll draw upon decades of medical research, documented case studies, and careful theological reflection. Our goal isn’t to prove that every NDE is authentic—indeed, discernment is crucial—but rather to demonstrate that the common materialistic explanations fall far short of explaining the most compelling cases. Let’s begin with perhaps the most frequently cited explanation: oxygen deprivation.

Question 1: “Aren’t NDEs Just Caused by a Lack of Oxygen to the Brain?”

This is perhaps the most common objection raised against Near-Death Experiences. The argument goes like this: When someone is dying, their brain isn’t getting enough oxygen. This oxygen deprivation, called hypoxia (reduced oxygen) or anoxia (no oxygen), causes the brain to malfunction and produce hallucinations that we interpret as NDEs. It sounds scientific and reasonable on the surface. After all, we know that lack of oxygen can cause various mental effects. But does this explanation actually fit the evidence?

The first problem with the oxygen deprivation theory is that it completely mischaracterizes what actually happens when the brain lacks oxygen. P.M.H. Atwater, in her comprehensive work “The Big Book of Near-Death Experiences,” notes a crucial distinction: “Studies have demonstrated that loss of oxygen to the brain can bring about memory alterations and a visual distortion which, interestingly, leads to tunnel vision (a narrow focus in one’s vision).” However, she points out that this is fundamentally different from NDEs.

Dr. Bruce Greyson, one of the world’s leading NDE researchers and a professor of psychiatry at the University of Virginia, has spent decades studying this question. His findings directly contradict the hypoxia hypothesis. According to his research documented in “After,” the medical literature has established that decreased oxygen is a very unpleasant experience, particularly for those people who report perceptual distortions and hallucinations. He specifically notes: “The fear, agitation, and combativeness typical in people with decreased oxygen are very different from NDEs, which are usually peaceful, positive experiences.”

But here’s where the evidence becomes even more compelling. Greyson didn’t just theorize about oxygen levels—he and other researchers actually measured them. He reports: “The most conclusive evidence for me came from research that actually measured oxygen levels in people during medical crises. That research consistently showed that NDEs are associated either with increased oxygen levels, or with levels the same as those of non-experiencers. No study has ever shown decreased levels of oxygen during NDEs.”

Think about that for a moment. Not a single study has found decreased oxygen levels during NDEs. In fact, the opposite is true. John C. Hagan III, in “The Science of Near-Death Experiences,” confirms this finding: “Furthermore, studies of people near death have shown that those who have NDEs have oxygen levels the same as, or higher than, those who do not have NDEs.”

Michael Sabom, a cardiologist who has extensively studied NDEs in his patients, provides additional medical insight in “Light & Death: One Doctor’s Fascinating Account of Near-Death Experiences.” He explains that temporal lobe seizures, which some have proposed as being triggered by hypoxia, don’t match the NDE pattern either. Sabom notes: “This loss of mental integration is a key feature that separates seizure phenomena from the near-death experience.” He cites Dr. Denis Williams’ massive study of 2,000 epileptic patients, which found that seizures “do not cause spontaneous primary cognition, since cognition is purely an integrative function. The epileptic experience can include hallucinations of sight, sound, smell and even hallucinations of emotion and mood, but it does not cause hallucinations of thought.”

Let’s consider what actually happens during oxygen deprivation from a medical standpoint. When test pilots undergo acceleration-induced unconsciousness (G-LOC) in centrifuge tests, they do experience oxygen deprivation. What do they report? According to research cited by Atwater, while they may experience tunnel vision and some unusual sensations, their experiences are fundamentally different from NDEs. Dr. James Whinnery, who studied these G-LOC experiences extensively, concluded that symptoms “unique to the NDE” are beyond the scope of this type of experimentation and require longer forays into the process of dying.

The dreamlike episodes that occur during G-LOC have specific characteristics that distinguish them from NDEs. Sabom reports that these “dreamlets” during G-LOC experiments “met all the characteristic features of dreams, including emotional intensity, detailed sensory imagery, illogical content and organization, uncritical acceptance, and difficulty in remembering once it is over.” These characteristics are the opposite of NDEs, which people consistently describe as more real than normal reality, logically coherent, and unforgettable.

Chris Carter, in “Science and the Near-Death Experience: How Consciousness Survives Death,” addresses another aspect of this issue. He points out that many NDEs occur in situations where oxygen deprivation isn’t even a factor. Some happen during non-life-threatening situations, during emotional crises with no physical danger, or even spontaneously without any medical crisis at all. How could oxygen deprivation explain these cases?

Furthermore, if NDEs were simply the result of a oxygen-starved brain producing random hallucinations, we would expect them to be highly variable and disorganized. Instead, we find remarkable consistency across cultures, ages, and circumstances. The fact that a five-year-old child in America, a Buddhist monk in Tibet, and an atheist scientist in Europe can all report strikingly similar experiences suggests something more than random brain malfunction.

From a theological perspective, this evidence aligns with the biblical understanding that humans are more than just physical bodies. The ability to have clear, coherent experiences when the brain should be incapable of producing them points to what theologians call substance dualism—the view that we have both a physical body and an immaterial soul. As the document “Is Christianity Compatible With Deathbed and Near-Death Experiences?” notes: “The New Testament clearly teaches that the soul/spirit and body can indeed separate.” This is evident in passages like 2 Corinthians 5:8, where Paul speaks of being “absent from the body and to be at home with the Lord.”

The hypoxia hypothesis also fails to explain one of the most compelling aspects of NDEs: veridical perception. How could a oxygen-deprived, malfunctioning brain enable someone to accurately perceive and later report events happening in other rooms, or even miles away? These aren’t vague impressions but specific, detailed observations that are later verified by independent witnesses.

The evidence is overwhelming: oxygen deprivation cannot and does not explain Near-Death Experiences. Every attempt to create NDE-like experiences through hypoxia has failed to reproduce the key elements: the clarity of consciousness, the life review, the encounter with deceased relatives (sometimes ones the person didn’t know had died), the coherent narrative structure, and most importantly, the veridical out-of-body perceptions. The oxygen deprivation theory, while initially plausible, crumbles under the weight of actual medical evidence.

Question 2: “Could NDEs Be Caused by Brain Chemicals Like DMT or Endorphins?”

Another popular explanation for NDEs involves brain chemistry. The theory suggests that when we’re dying or under extreme stress, our brains release powerful chemicals that create the NDE experience. The usual suspects include endorphins (our body’s natural painkillers), ketamine-like substances, and DMT (dimethyltryptamine), sometimes called the “spirit molecule.” This explanation might seem more sophisticated than the oxygen deprivation theory, but does it fare any better when examined closely?

Let’s start with endorphins. These are morphine-like substances that our brains produce naturally during times of stress, fear, or pain. They’re responsible for phenomena like the “runner’s high” and can produce feelings of peace and well-being. Sabom, in “Light & Death,” acknowledges their role: “These brain chemicals are known to produce a state of painlessness and calm in the face of life-threatening danger.” He provides a vivid example of a woman who was brutally attacked but suddenly felt overwhelming calm during the assault, likely due to endorphin release.

But here’s the crucial question: Can endorphins actually cause NDEs? The research says no. Sabom reports on a comprehensive review published in the International Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, Therapy and Toxicology, which concluded that “both pro-and anticonvulsant effects have been reported, thus making it difficult to draw conclusions about the pathophysiological role of endogenous opioid peptides [i.e., endorphins] in epilepsy.” The authors even suggested that endorphins might be effective in treating, not causing, the kinds of temporal lobe seizures some have proposed as NDE triggers.

Bruce Greyson’s research provides even more direct evidence against the brain chemical hypothesis. He notes: “Research showed that patients who are given medications in fact report fewer NDEs than do patients who don’t get any medication.” This is a stunning finding. If NDEs were caused by brain chemicals, we would expect people who receive powerful drugs during their medical crises to have more NDEs, not fewer. Yet the opposite is true.

What about DMT, the powerful psychedelic compound that some researchers have suggested might flood the brain at death? Greyson was part of a multinational research team that analyzed this possibility. They compared 625 NDE accounts with almost 15,000 accounts of experiences under 165 different drugs. While they found some similarities between NDEs and ketamine experiences, Greyson is careful to note: “We were careful to note that other common effects of ketamine don’t appear in NDEs, which suggests that NDEs are not simply an effect of the drug.”

This is a crucial distinction. While some drugs can produce certain elements that superficially resemble parts of NDEs—such as feelings of peace or visual distortions—they don’t produce the complete, coherent NDE experience. Atwater emphasizes this point in her comprehensive review: “People smoking hashish or taking LSD have experienced many of the identical experiences: entering a tunnel, seeing and entering a light, out-of-body travel, a sense of timelessness and vastness, and euphoria.” However, she notes that these drug experiences lack the transformative life review, the encounters with deceased relatives who provide verifiable information, and most importantly, the veridical perceptions that characterize genuine NDEs.

Karl Jansen, the neuroscientist who most strongly promoted the ketamine model for NDEs, ultimately had to revise his position. After twelve years of research, Greyson reports that Jansen “concluded that he viewed ketamine as ‘just another door’ to NDEs, and not as actually producing them.” This is a remarkable admission from someone who had spent over a decade trying to prove the ketamine-NDE connection.

The ketamine model faces another serious problem. P.M.H. Atwater points out a critical difference between drug-induced states and NDEs: “With respect to the ‘reality’ of ketamine experiences, almost all persons believe their experiences to be real while under the influence of the drug. In one study, 30 percent of the subjects continued to insist on the reality of their experiences once the drug had worn off.” Compare this to NDEs, where decades later, experiencers remain absolutely convinced of the reality of their experience, often stating it was “more real than real.”

Furthermore, the transformative aftereffects of NDEs are completely different from drug experiences. People who have NDEs typically experience profound, lasting changes: loss of the fear of death, increased compassion, decreased materialism, and often a complete reorientation of their life priorities. These changes persist for decades. Drug experiences, even profound ones, rarely produce such consistent, positive, long-term transformations.

Hagan, in “The Science of Near-Death Experiences,” addresses the speculation about various neurotransmitters: “NDEs have been speculatively attributed to a number of neurotransmitters in the brain, most frequently endorphins or other endogenous opioids, a putative ketamine-like endogenous neuroprotective agent acting on N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptors, serotonin, adrenaline, vasopressin, and glutamate.” But he notes the fatal flaw in all these theories: “These speculations are based on hypothetical endogenous chemicals or effects that have not been shown to exist, and are not supported by any empirical data.”

Think about what Hagan is saying here. Despite decades of research and speculation, there is no empirical data supporting the brain chemical hypothesis for NDEs. These remain purely theoretical explanations without any actual evidence to back them up.

The brain chemical hypothesis also completely fails to explain veridical perception during NDEs. How could endorphins or DMT enable someone to accurately perceive events in distant locations? How could these chemicals allow someone blind from birth to accurately describe visual scenes? How could they enable someone to meet a deceased relative they didn’t know had died and later have that death confirmed?

Consider the case documented in “Verified Near-Death Experiences: Proof Of An Afterlife” where a patient under anesthesia not only left their body but accurately observed specific details like Post-it notes in the operating room while their eyes were continuously closed and they were deeply unconscious. No amount of endorphins or DMT could explain such veridical perception.

From a theological perspective, the inability of brain chemicals to explain NDEs shouldn’t surprise us. If humans are more than just physical beings—if we have souls that can exist independently of our bodies—then we would expect experiences that transcend mere brain chemistry. The biblical worldview has always maintained that we are both physical and spiritual beings, created in God’s image with both body and soul.

The Apostle Paul himself seems to have had an experience that transcended normal brain chemistry. In 2 Corinthians 12:2-4, he writes about being “caught up to the third heaven” and specifically notes he doesn’t know “whether in the body or out of the body.” This uncertainty wouldn’t make sense if all experiences were simply brain-based chemical reactions. Paul understood that consciousness could potentially exist apart from the physical body.

The brain chemical hypothesis represents another failed attempt to reduce the profound mystery of NDEs to simple materialism. While our brains certainly use chemical signals, and while certain drugs can produce some superficially similar experiences, the totality of NDE phenomena—especially the veridical perceptions, encounters with the deceased, life reviews, and lasting transformations—cannot be explained by brain chemistry alone.

Question 3: “Why Doesn’t Everyone Who Dies or Nearly Dies Have an NDE?”

This is a fascinating question that skeptics often raise. If NDEs are real glimpses of the afterlife, they argue, shouldn’t everyone who comes close to death have one? The fact that only some people report NDEs (estimates range from 10-20% of cardiac arrest survivors) is seen by some as evidence against their reality. But this objection, while understandable, rests on several questionable assumptions.

First, let’s establish what we actually know about the frequency of NDEs. Pim van Lommel, in his groundbreaking study published in The Lancet, found that 18% of cardiac arrest survivors reported some memory of the time they were clinically dead, with 12% reporting a “core” NDE experience. Other studies have found similar percentages. But what does this mean?

Bruce Greyson addresses this objection directly: “Analogous to not remembering all dreams; absence of evidence for one person is not evidence of absence for another.” This is a crucial point. We don’t remember every dream we have, yet we don’t doubt that dreams occur. Similarly, the fact that not everyone remembers an NDE doesn’t mean they didn’t have one.

Michael Sabom provides important medical context in “Light & Death.” He notes that cardiac arrest patients are often given powerful medications that can interfere with memory formation. Many are in states of profound medical crisis where the brain’s ability to form and retain memories is severely compromised. The surprise isn’t that only some people remember NDEs—the surprise is that anyone in such extreme medical conditions can form and retain such vivid, detailed memories at all.

But there’s a deeper issue here. The objection assumes that if NDEs are real spiritual experiences, God would give them to everyone equally. This assumption isn’t supported by biblical precedent. Throughout Scripture, we see that spiritual experiences are distributed according to God’s sovereign will, not uniformly to everyone.

Consider the biblical pattern of visions and spiritual experiences. Not every prophet had the same experiences. Not every apostle witnessed the Transfiguration. Not every early Christian had a Damascus Road experience like Paul. As noted in “Is Christianity Compatible With Deathbed and Near-Death Experiences?”: “God is sovereign in His distribution of spiritual experiences.” The document points to 1 Corinthians 12, where Paul explicitly teaches that spiritual gifts and experiences are distributed differently to different people according to God’s will.

Van Lommel offers another perspective based on his decades of research. He suggests that some people may be more “receptive” to these experiences due to various factors we don’t fully understand. This doesn’t make the experiences less real—it simply means that, like many aspects of human consciousness, there are individual variations in how people experience and remember these profound events.

There’s also the issue of cultural and psychological factors that affect reporting. Many people who have NDEs don’t talk about them for years or even decades. Sabom found that patients were often reluctant to discuss their experiences with medical professionals for fear of being thought mentally ill. Van Lommel reports: “Patients were often reluctant to share their experiences, afraid of not being believed or of being ridiculed.”

This underreporting is confirmed by multiple researchers. Nancy Evans Bush, a researcher who has studied NDEs for decades, notes that many experiencers never tell anyone about their NDE, or only share it with a trusted family member years later. The actual percentage of people who have NDEs may be significantly higher than our studies suggest.

Furthermore, not all NDEs are positive, which may affect reporting rates. Bush’s research indicates that perhaps one in five NDEs are distressing or “hellish.” People who have frightening NDEs are even less likely to report them than those who have positive experiences. The stigma and fear associated with these experiences mean they often go unreported.

Jeffrey Long’s research, documented in “God and the Afterlife,” provides additional insight. He found that NDEs occur across all demographics—age, gender, culture, religious background—with remarkably similar core elements. The fact that they don’t occur in everyone doesn’t diminish their reality any more than the fact that not everyone has a photographic memory diminishes the reality of that phenomenon.

From a practical medical standpoint, there may be physiological factors we don’t yet understand that influence whether someone has or remembers an NDE. Just as some people are more susceptible to certain medical conditions or respond differently to medications, there may be neurological or consciousness-related factors that influence NDE occurrence or recall.

The variability in NDE occurrence actually argues for their authenticity rather than against it. If NDEs were simply the product of dying brain chemistry, we would expect them to be far more uniform and predictable. Every dying brain goes through similar chemical changes, so if NDEs were merely biological, they should occur in everyone or no one. The fact that they occur selectively, and that their occurrence doesn’t correlate with any known medical factors, suggests something beyond mere biology is at work.

The document “A Catholic Understanding of the Near Death Experience” offers an interesting theological perspective: “NDE’s do include Hell in all its horror, but they also allude to, or speak directly of ultimate universal salvation… This eventual victory over Hell itself is not expected by current Catholic doctrine, but it is acknowledged as a possibility.” This suggests that NDEs may serve different purposes for different people—some as warnings, some as comfort, some as commission for service.

We should also consider that not everyone may need an NDE. Some people already have strong faith and don’t need such an experience. Others might be harmed rather than helped by such an experience at a particular point in their spiritual journey. God, in His wisdom, may grant these experiences to those who most need them or who will use them for His purposes.

The apostle Thomas needed to see and touch Jesus’ wounds to believe in the resurrection. The other apostles didn’t require this evidence. Jesus didn’t condemn Thomas for his need for evidence, but He did say, “Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed” (John 20:29). Similarly, some people may receive NDEs as a form of evidence or encouragement, while others are called to faith through different means.

Question 4: “Isn’t This All Just Wishful Thinking or a Psychological Defense Mechanism?”

This objection suggests that NDEs are nothing more than comforting fantasies created by our minds to protect us from the terror of death. It’s an appealing explanation from a materialist perspective because it doesn’t require any supernatural elements—just ordinary psychological processes we already know exist. But does this explanation hold up when we examine the actual evidence?

The wishful thinking hypothesis argues that people facing death naturally imagine pleasant scenarios of afterlife, heaven, deceased loved ones, and divine beings to cope with their mortality. It assumes that NDEs are products of expectation, cultural conditioning, and psychological need for comfort. If this were true, we would expect several things to be evident in the data.

First, we would expect NDEs to closely match people’s pre-existing beliefs and expectations about death and afterlife. But this isn’t what researchers find. Chris Carter, in “Science and the Near-Death Experience,” notes: “Individuals sometimes report experiences that conflict with their religious and personal expectations of death.” This is a crucial point that deserves careful consideration.

The document “Near-Death Experiences as Evidence for the Existence of God and Heaven” expands on this: “If NDEs are caused by expectations of heaven or wishful thinking, then why are both the religious and irreligious surprised by how the experience fails to conform to their expectations? Especially in the early studies, before NDEs were popularized, nobody was expecting an experience of leaving the body, observing resuscitation efforts, meeting deceased relatives, reviewing their lives, and discussing whether or not to return.”

Think about that. In Moody’s original study in 1975, before NDEs became widely known, people were having experiences that didn’t match any common cultural or religious expectations. They weren’t experiencing the “pearly gates” or “St. Peter with a clipboard” or clouds and harps. Instead, they reported consistent elements that surprised even them: leaving their bodies, moving through a tunnel, encountering a being of light, having a life review, and reaching a boundary or decision point about returning.

The wishful thinking hypothesis faces an even bigger problem when we consider distressing or “hellish” NDEs. Nancy Evans Bush’s research, extensively documented in “The Buddha in Hell and Other Alarms,” shows that approximately one in five NDEs are distressing. The document “Is Christianity Compatible With Deathbed and Near-Death Experiences?” provides specific examples:

“In Bush’s distressing NDE, she experienced beings who heckled and mocked her, telling her very authoritatively ‘You are not real. You never were real. You never existed. Your life never existed. The world never existed. It was a game you were allowed to invent. There was never anything, or anyone. That’s the joke—that it was all a joke.'”

How does the wishful thinking hypothesis explain these terrifying experiences? Why would someone’s psychological defense mechanism produce demons, hellfire, or existential terror? The existence of distressing NDEs completely contradicts the wishful thinking hypothesis.

Bruce Greyson provides additional evidence against the psychological defense mechanism theory in “After.” He notes: “There is absolutely no evidence that NDErs are fantasy-prone individuals. Although NDErs do score higher than nonNDErs on standard measures of fantasy-proneness, which may suggest nothing more than that their sensory perceptions of the outside world are much more vivid than those of nonNDErs, NDErs’ scores do not come anywhere near the cut-off point on those measures for designation as a ‘fantasy-prone personality.'”

This is important research. Psychologists have identified certain personality types who are prone to fantasy and have difficulty distinguishing fantasy from reality. But NDE experiencers don’t fit this profile. They’re ordinary people from all walks of life—doctors, scientists, children, atheists, believers—who have an extraordinary experience they insist is more real than ordinary reality.

Carter addresses another aspect of this objection: “This theory should predict a strong correlation between the occurrence of NDEs and the strength of religious belief, yet as noted above, there is no such correlation.” If NDEs were wish-fulfillment based on religious expectations, religious people should have more NDEs than non-religious people. But they don’t. Atheists and agnostics have NDEs at the same rate as believers, and their NDEs often conflict dramatically with their worldview.

Consider the case of Howard Storm, referenced in the document. An atheist professor who “experienced a perforated intestine” had a terrifying NDE where he was attacked by hostile beings. He reports: “The beings around me became extremely agitated and told me in the most filthy, horrible language that there was no God. Mention of God offended them so much that it drove them away.” This experience was so contrary to his atheistic worldview that he eventually left academia and became a pastor. How does wishful thinking explain an atheist having an experience that leads him to completely reverse his worldview?

The document “After Bruce Greyson” provides another fascinating case that challenges the psychological defense mechanism theory. It describes Henry, who attempted suicide and during his NDE saw his deceased parents who told him it wasn’t his time. The psychiatrist treating him initially viewed this as “a psychological defense mechanism and nothing more.” But Henry’s transformation was remarkable—he went from being suicidal to being “happy now that I know where she [his mother] is” and eager to help other patients understand “the value and sanctity of life.”

If this were merely a psychological defense mechanism, we would expect it to be a temporary coping strategy that fades as the crisis passes. Instead, NDEs produce permanent, positive transformations that persist for decades. The document notes: “Whatever had led him to see his parents, this vision was clearly helping him cope with his grief” in a profound and lasting way.

Furthermore, children’s NDEs provide compelling evidence against the wishful thinking hypothesis. Young children, some as young as three or four, report NDEs with the same core elements as adults, even though they haven’t been culturally conditioned about death or afterlife concepts. They report leaving their bodies, encountering deceased relatives (sometimes ones they didn’t know had died), and experiencing the same tunnel, light, and life review as adults.

Dr. Melvin Morse’s research with children, documented in “Closer to the Light,” found that children’s NDEs were remarkably similar to adult NDEs despite children having minimal cultural conditioning about death. How could wishful thinking produce such consistent experiences in children too young to have developed elaborate psychological defense mechanisms?

The veridical perception aspect of NDEs delivers perhaps the strongest blow to the wishful thinking hypothesis. How does wishful thinking enable someone to accurately perceive events in distant locations? The document “Ring – 2008 – Mindsight Near-Death and Out-of-Body Experiences in the Blind” provides extraordinary evidence of blind people, including those blind from birth, accurately describing visual scenes during their NDEs.

One compelling case involved Nancy, who was blinded by a surgical mishap but during her NDE “saw” a friend and her former husband standing in the hospital hall. The document notes: “The accuracy of this was confirmed when the two friends were located and interviewed.” No amount of wishful thinking could enable a blind person to accurately “see” and describe specific people in specific locations.

The consistency of NDEs across cultures provides additional evidence against the wishful thinking hypothesis. If NDEs were based on cultural expectations and personal wishes, we would expect radical differences between the NDEs of Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims, and atheists. While there are some cultural variations in interpretation (a Christian might interpret the Being of Light as Jesus while a Hindu might see Krishna), the core experience remains remarkably consistent.

The document “Is Christianity Compatible With Deathbed and Near-Death Experiences?” addresses this directly in discussing a study of Krishna sightings in NDEs: “Some researchers have assumed that since various religious figures have been reported in NDEs globally, that while all people may be seeing a being of light, they naturally interpret the being of light according to their religious beliefs.” However, the research found that even in India, Jesus was reported far more frequently than Krishna or other Hindu deities, suggesting something more than mere cultural projection.

From a theological perspective, the psychological defense mechanism theory assumes a purely materialistic view of human nature—that we are nothing more than biological machines trying to survive. But Scripture teaches that humans are created in God’s image with both body and soul. We have a spiritual dimension that transcends mere psychological processes.

The Apostle Paul understood this when he wrote about his own possible out-of-body experience, noting he didn’t know “whether in the body or out of the body” (2 Corinthians 12:2). If all experiences were just psychological processes in the brain, such uncertainty wouldn’t make sense. Paul recognized that consciousness might exist independently of the physical body.

The evidence overwhelmingly refutes the wishful thinking and psychological defense mechanism theories. NDEs don’t match expectations, occur in atheists and believers alike, include distressing experiences, produce permanent transformations, occur consistently in young children, include veridical perceptions impossible to explain psychologically, and show remarkable cross-cultural consistency. These are not the characteristics of wish-fulfillment or psychological coping mechanisms, but of genuine encounters with a transcendent reality.

Additional Objections and Responses

While we’ve addressed the four main objections specified, several other important challenges deserve our attention. These additional objections often come up in discussions about NDEs and require thoughtful responses based on the available evidence.

The REM Intrusion Hypothesis

Some researchers have suggested that NDEs might be caused by REM (Rapid Eye Movement) sleep states intruding into waking consciousness during extreme stress. This hypothesis suggests that the dying brain experiences a mixing of dream-like REM activity with conscious awareness, producing the NDE.

However, this explanation faces insurmountable problems. Greyson’s research, documented in “After,” found that “the REM intrusion hypothesis is contradicted by the common occurrence of NDEs under conditions that inhibit REM, such as general anesthesia.” This is a devastating finding for the REM hypothesis. Many of the most detailed and verified NDEs occur when patients are under general anesthesia, which suppresses REM activity.

Furthermore, Greyson found that “measurements of REM brain activity in people who’ve had NDEs show that it’s actually lower than in other people.” Not only do NDEs occur when REM is suppressed, but people who have NDEs actually show less REM activity than the general population. An Italian research team found additional evidence: “experiencers remembering their NDEs did not have brain wave patterns typical of recalling fantasies or dreams, but had brain wave patterns typical of memories of real events.”

Hagan confirms these findings in “The Science of Near-Death Experiences”: “The REM intrusion hypothesis is contradicted by the common occurrence of NDEs under conditions that inhibit REM, such as general anesthesia, and by the finding of reduced REM in near-death experiencers.”

The Temporal Lobe Seizure Theory

Another proposed explanation suggests that NDEs are caused by seizures in the temporal lobes of the brain. Some researchers have noted that temporal lobe epilepsy can occasionally produce religious or mystical experiences, leading them to hypothesize that NDEs might be a form of seizure activity.

Dr. Michael Persinger, a neuroscientist at Laurentian University, has been a prominent proponent of this theory. He has used electrical stimulation of the temporal lobes to produce some experiences that superficially resemble aspects of NDEs. However, Sabom notes a crucial distinction in “Light & Death”: “Dr. Michael Persinger, Professor of Neuroscience and Psychology at Laurentian University in Canada, has mimicked temporal lobe seizure phenomena by electrical stimulation of the brain. These induced experiences were ‘fragmented and variable, whereas in NDEs these sensations are integrated and focused within a brief period.'”

The key difference is integration versus fragmentation. Temporal lobe seizures produce disconnected, fragmented experiences—flashes of light, brief sensations, disconnected images. NDEs, by contrast, are highly integrated, coherent experiences with clear narrative structure and logical progression. As Sabom explains: “This loss of mental integration is a key feature that separates seizure phenomena from the near-death experience.”

The Dying Brain Theory

Perhaps the most comprehensive materialist explanation is the “dying brain theory,” which suggests that NDEs are the result of the brain’s final burst of activity as it shuts down. This theory proposes that the dying brain releases a cascade of neurotransmitters and experiences a surge of electrical activity that creates the NDE.

This theory gained attention when researcher Jimo Borjigin found gamma wave activity in dying rats’ brains. Some scientists suggested this might explain human NDEs. However, there are serious problems with extrapolating from rat brains to human consciousness, and even more serious problems with the theory itself.

First, many NDEs occur when there is no measurable brain activity at all. Patients with flat EEGs, showing no electrical activity in the cortex, have reported detailed NDEs with veridical perceptions. If NDEs were caused by a surge of brain activity, they couldn’t occur when the brain shows no activity.

Second, the dying brain theory cannot explain NDEs that occur in non-life-threatening situations. Some people have NDEs during meditation, childbirth, or even spontaneously with no medical crisis at all. If NDEs were caused by the dying brain’s final activity, they could only occur when the brain is actually dying.

Third, and most importantly, no dying brain theory can explain veridical out-of-body perceptions. How could a dying brain enable someone to accurately perceive events in distant locations? How could it allow someone to meet deceased relatives they didn’t know had died? These verified perceptions require consciousness to be operating independently of the physical brain.

The Evolution and Survival Mechanism Theory

Some scientists have proposed that NDEs might be an evolutionary adaptation—a biological mechanism that evolved to help our ancestors survive life-threatening situations by reducing panic and fear. This theory suggests that individuals who could remain calm during near-death situations would be more likely to survive and pass on their genes.

While creative, this theory has several fatal flaws. First, it doesn’t explain why NDEs would include accurate perceptions of distant events. How would veridical out-of-body perception help survival? Second, it doesn’t explain why many NDEs include a strong desire not to return to life. If NDEs evolved to promote survival, why would they make people want to stay dead?

Most importantly, this theory cannot explain the transformative aftereffects of NDEs. People don’t just feel calm after an NDE—they undergo profound personality changes that often make them less concerned with personal survival and more focused on spiritual matters and serving others. These changes would be counterproductive from an evolutionary survival perspective.

The False Memory Theory

Some skeptics suggest that NDEs might be false memories created after the fact—that people unconsciously construct these narratives based on things they’ve heard or imagined, then come to believe them as real memories.

This theory is contradicted by several lines of evidence. First, many NDEs are reported immediately upon regaining consciousness, before there’s time for false memory construction. Second, children as young as three report NDEs with the same elements as adults, despite having no prior knowledge of such experiences. Third, and most conclusively, veridical perceptions during NDEs are often immediately verified by medical staff and family members.

The case documented in “Verified Near Death Experiences” where a patient accurately described Post-it notes in the operating room while continuously unconscious with closed eyes cannot be explained by false memory. The observations were verified immediately by medical staff who were present during the surgery.

The Cumulative Case: Why Materialist Explanations Fail

Having examined each objection individually, it’s important to step back and consider the cumulative weight of the evidence. While skeptics might propose different explanations for different aspects of NDEs—oxygen deprivation for the tunnel, endorphins for the peace, wishful thinking for meeting deceased relatives—no single materialist theory can explain all aspects of the NDE phenomenon.

More problematically for skeptics, many of their proposed explanations contradict each other. If NDEs are caused by excess carbon dioxide, they can’t also be caused by lack of oxygen. If they’re caused by REM intrusion, they can’t also be caused by temporal lobe seizures. The skeptics’ inability to agree on a single explanation after decades of research suggests that materialist explanations simply don’t fit the data.

Meanwhile, the evidence for the reality of NDEs continues to mount. Every year brings new cases of veridical perception, new studies showing the inadequacy of materialist explanations, and new research documenting the transformative effects of these experiences. The fact that NDEs occur across all cultures, ages, and belief systems with remarkable consistency points to a genuine phenomenon that transcends cultural construction or individual psychology.

Theological Implications: What NDEs Tell Us About Human Nature

The failure of materialist explanations for NDEs has profound implications for our understanding of human nature. If consciousness can exist and function when the brain is clinically dead, this provides powerful evidence for what theologians call substance dualism—the view that humans consist of both physical body and immaterial soul.

The document “Is Christianity Compatible With Deathbed and Near-Death Experiences?” makes this connection explicit: “NDEs provide some of the strongest empirical evidence for the biblical view of human nature.” The biblical teaching that humans are created in God’s image, with both body and soul, is confirmed by the evidence that consciousness can operate independently of the physical brain.

This has implications beyond academic theology. If we are more than just physical bodies—if we have souls that survive bodily death—then materialism is false and the spiritual dimension of reality is real. This opens the door to the entire Christian worldview: God, afterlife, moral accountability, and ultimate meaning.

The Apostle Paul’s teaching in 2 Corinthians 5:8 that believers can be “absent from the body and at home with the Lord” makes perfect sense in light of NDE research. The biblical passages that speak of the soul departing from the body at death (Luke 8:55, Luke 23:43, Philippians 1:23) are validated by modern NDE accounts.

Furthermore, the content of many NDEs aligns remarkably with biblical teachings. The Being of Light encountered in many NDEs corresponds to the biblical description that “God is light” (1 John 1:5). The life review parallels the biblical teaching about giving account for our lives (2 Corinthians 5:10). The transformation of experiencers toward greater love and less materialism echoes Jesus’ teaching about storing up treasures in heaven rather than on earth.

However, we must also maintain biblical discernment. Not every NDE account should be accepted uncritically. Some may be embellished, misremembered, or even fabricated. Some may contain elements that contradict biblical teaching. The apostle John’s command to “test the spirits” (1 John 4:1) applies here as elsewhere.

The Challenge to Scientific Materialism

The evidence from NDE research poses a fundamental challenge to scientific materialism—the worldview that claims physical matter is all that exists and that consciousness is merely a product of brain activity. This worldview, which dominates much of modern science and academia, cannot accommodate the verified phenomena of NDEs.

Carter, in “Science and the Near-Death Experience,” documents how some materialist scientists respond to this challenge not with scientific objectivity but with ideological resistance. He quotes philosopher Neal Grossman’s encounter with a colleague who stated: “Even if I were to have a near-death experience myself, I would conclude that I was hallucinating, rather than believe that my mind can exist independently of my brain.”

This is not scientific thinking but dogmatic adherence to materialist ideology. When someone declares they would reject their own direct experience rather than question their worldview, they’ve moved from science to scientism—a quasi-religious commitment to materialism regardless of evidence.

The resistance of some scientists to NDE evidence parallels the resistance of religious authorities to Galileo’s telescopic observations. Just as some refused to look through Galileo’s telescope because they “knew” Jupiter couldn’t have moons, some modern scientists refuse to seriously examine NDE evidence because they “know” consciousness can’t exist without a brain.

But science at its best follows evidence wherever it leads. And the evidence from NDE research points toward a reality that transcends physical matter—a reality where consciousness can exist independently of the brain, where there is continuity of personal identity after bodily death, and where the spiritual dimension is as real as the physical.

Practical Implications: How Should We Respond to NDEs?

Given the failure of materialist explanations and the mounting evidence for the reality of many NDEs, how should Christians respond to this phenomenon? The document “Is Christianity Compatible With Deathbed and Near-Death Experiences?” offers valuable guidance.

First, we should neither wholesale accept nor wholesale reject NDEs. Biblical discernment requires careful evaluation of each case. We should look for consistency with biblical teaching, evidence of genuine transformation, and verification of any claimed veridical perceptions.

Second, we should recognize that God may use NDEs for His purposes. Throughout Scripture, God uses various means to draw people to Himself and strengthen faith. If NDEs help people lose their fear of death, turn to God, or live more compassionate lives, we can see God’s hand at work even while maintaining appropriate caution about specific details.

Third, we should use NDEs as opportunities for spiritual conversations. Many people are fascinated by NDEs and open to discussing them. These conversations can naturally lead to discussions about God, afterlife, and the gospel. As the document notes, respected Christian apologists like Gary Habermas and J.P. Moreland use NDE evidence in their defense of Christian truth.

Fourth, we must remember that NDEs are not our ultimate authority—Scripture is. While NDEs may provide evidence that supports biblical teaching about the soul and afterlife, they should never supersede or replace biblical revelation. Any NDE claim that contradicts clear biblical teaching should be rejected.

Finally, we should approach this topic with humility and wonder. The fact that people can have conscious experiences when their brains are clinically dead points to mysteries about consciousness and human nature that we’re only beginning to understand. Rather than dogmatically insisting we have all the answers, we should be open to learning more about God’s creation while remaining grounded in biblical truth.

Conclusion: The Evidence Demands a Verdict

After examining the major objections to Near-Death Experiences, the evidence is clear. The common materialist explanations—oxygen deprivation, brain chemicals, wishful thinking, psychological defense mechanisms—all fail to account for the full range of NDE phenomena. Most significantly, none of these explanations can account for veridical out-of-body perceptions where people accurately observe events they couldn’t have known through normal means.

The failure isn’t due to lack of trying. For nearly fifty years since Raymond Moody first brought NDEs to public attention, skeptics have proposed numerous theories to explain them away. Yet each proposed explanation has crumbled under scrutiny. Meanwhile, the evidence for the reality of NDEs continues to accumulate through careful research, documented case studies, and verified perceptions.

This doesn’t mean every NDE account is authentic or that every detail reported is accurate. Human memory is fallible, some people embellish or misremember, and spiritual deception is real. But the core phenomenon—that some people have conscious experiences during clinical death that include accurate perceptions and produce lasting positive transformations—appears to be genuine.

For Christians, this evidence should be encouraging. It confirms biblical teaching about the soul, provides evidence for life after death, and offers opportunities for evangelism and spiritual conversations. While maintaining biblical discernment, we can appreciate NDEs as one more pointer toward the spiritual reality that Scripture reveals.

For skeptics, the evidence should be challenging. The materialist worldview that reduces humans to purely physical beings cannot accommodate the verified phenomena of NDEs. When people accurately perceive events while clinically dead, when the blind see during NDEs, when people meet deceased relatives they didn’t know had died, we’re forced to consider that consciousness might indeed transcend the physical brain.

The evidence from Near-Death Experience research points unmistakably toward the reality of the soul and the continuation of consciousness after bodily death. While questions remain and research continues, the failure of materialist explanations combined with the mounting positive evidence makes a powerful case that at least some NDEs are genuine glimpses into the greater reality that awaits us beyond death’s door.

As we conclude this examination of objections to NDEs, we’re reminded of the words of the Apostle Paul: “For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known” (1 Corinthians 13:12). NDEs may offer us a dim glimpse through that mirror, a foretaste of the greater reality that awaits. While we hold these experiences with appropriate biblical discernment, we can also receive them as evidence of the hope that lies beyond death—a hope grounded ultimately not in human experiences but in the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who conquered death and opened the way to eternal life.

The skeptics have had their say. The objections have been examined. The evidence has been weighed. And the conclusion is clear: the common materialist explanations for NDEs fail to explain the phenomena. Something real, something that transcends physical matter, something that points to the reality of the soul and the afterlife, is happening in Near-Death Experiences. The question is not whether NDEs are real, but how we will respond to this evidence of the greater reality that Scripture has always proclaimed.

Bibliography

Atwater, P. M. H. The Big Book of Near-Death Experiences: The Ultimate Guide to the NDE and Its Aftereffects. Charlottesville, VA: Hampton Roads Publishing, 2021.

Bown, Simon, and Anthony Parr. Verified Near Death Experiences: Proof Of An Afterlife. London: Grapevine Books, 2025.

Burke, John. Imagine Heaven: Near-Death Experiences, God’s Promises, and the Exhilarating Future That Awaits You. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2015.

Bush, Nancy Evans. The Buddha in Hell and Other Alarms: Distressing Near-Death Experiences in Perspective. IngramSpark, 2016.

Carter, Chris. Science and the Near-Death Experience: How Consciousness Survives Death. Rochester, VT: Inner Traditions, 2010.

Greyson, Bruce. After: A Doctor Explores What Near-Death Experiences Reveal about Life and Beyond. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2021.

Habermas, Gary, and J. P. Moreland. Beyond Death: Exploring the Evidence for Immortality. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock Publishers, 2004.

Hagan, John C., III, ed. The Science of Near-Death Experiences. Columbia: University of Missouri Press, 2017.

Long, Jeffrey, with Paul Perry. God and the Afterlife: The Groundbreaking New Evidence for God and Near-Death Experience. New York: HarperCollins, 2017.

Miller, J. Steve. Is Christianity Compatible With Deathbed and Near-Death Experiences? The Surprising Presence of Jesus, Scarcity of Anti-Christian Elements, And Compatibility with Historic Christian Teachings. Acworth, GA: Wisdom Creek Press, 2023.

Miller, J. Steve. Near-Death Experiences as Evidence for the Existence of God and Heaven: A Brief Introduction in Plain Language. Acworth, GA: Wisdom Creek Press, 2012.

Morse, Melvin, with Paul Perry. Closer to the Light: Learning from the Near-Death Experiences of Children. New York: Villard, 1990.

Ring, Kenneth, and Sharon Cooper. Mindsight: Near-Death and Out-of-Body Experiences in the Blind. 2nd ed. Bloomington, IN: iUniverse, 2008.

Sabom, Michael. Light & Death: One Doctor’s Fascinating Account of Near-Death Experiences. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998.

Van Lommel, Pim. Consciousness Beyond Life: The Science of the Near-Death Experience. New York: HarperOne, 2010.

A Catholic Understanding of the Near Death Experience. Revised Edition. 2023.

© 2025, LearnTheology.com. All rights reserved.