#newjust now
Anonymous Coward
Guest
Home › Consciousness Files
The Consciousness Files
Thousands of people have described leaving their bodies near death, and most say it felt more real than waking life. On its own, that tells us a great deal about experience and very little about the world. The question this section asks is narrower and harder: has anyone, while their brain was out of action, perceived something true that they had no ordinary way to know?
These files collect the cases most often offered as a yes. Each is presented in its strongest form, then given the best skeptical reply we could find, then rated. Every fact is taken from the researchers' own publications or from their critics' published responses, and where we could not confirm a detail, we left it out.
Why "veridical" is the whole question
Veridical means "truthful": a perception that corresponds to something that was actually there. In this literature it means a report, made by someone who appeared to be unconscious or clinically dead, of an event or object that was later confirmed by independent witnesses or records.
It is the crux because everything else in a near-death experience can, in principle, be produced by a brain. Tunnels, light, peace, dead relatives and life reviews all have plausible sources in physiology, memory and expectation, and the same elements turn up in psychedelic drug states, migraine and epileptic auras. A beautiful vision proves nothing about where it came from. But a brain that is not working cannot record a conversation, and a brain lying on a table cannot see the top of a cupboard. If a perception is accurate, specific, beyond the reach of hearing, touch, guesswork and later contamination, and timed to a period when the brain was demonstrably not functioning, then the standard explanation has a real problem.
That gives us the five tests every case on these pages is put through:
- Accuracy: was what they reported actually there?
- Specificity: could it be guessed from what resuscitations or operating theatres usually look like?
- Channel: could it have been heard, felt, or glimpsed before or after unconsciousness?
- Timing: did the perceived event happen when the brain was demonstrably not working, or just before or after?
- Record: was the report written down before it was checked, and by whom?
If you want the raw material these cases come out of, start with the Near-Death Experience Research Foundation (NDERF), founded in 1998 by the radiation oncologist Jeffrey Long. It holds several thousand first-hand accounts submitted by experiencers, usually described as the largest collection of near-death reports anywhere, and it is worth an afternoon. Keep the five tests above in mind while you read: almost every account there is self-reported and was never checked against a record, which is exactly why the handful that were checked matter so much.
How the ratings work
- Strong: passes all five tests with independent documentation. No case here reaches it.
- Moderate: well documented, with at least one detail that is hard to explain, but with a plausible ordinary channel or a gap in timing or record.
- Weak: rests on a single witness, a late record, or details that ordinary means can account for.
- Disputed: a genuine result whose controls are contested, so that the argument turns on the method rather than the facts.
- Negative: a controlled test that looked for the effect and did not find it.
The cases at a glance
| Case | Year | Documented by | What was perceived | Verified by | Main objection | Rating |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pam Reynolds and the Standstill Operation | 1991 | Michael Sabom, Light and Death (1998) | The cranial saw; a female voice saying her blood vessels were too small | Surgical records and staff, via Sabom; the surgeon Robert Spetzler spoke publicly | The verified details came before the cardiac standstill, while she was anaesthetised but her brain was working | Moderate. Unusually well documented, but the checkable details fall in the window when hearing under anaesthesia is a live explanation. |
| The Man Who Knew Where His Dentures Were | Pilot phase of a study published 2001 | Pim van Lommel et al., The Lancet (2001); follow-up by Rudolf Smit (2008) | The nurse removing his dentures and putting them in the drawer of a crash cart | The nurse, in her own report; later interviews by Smit | A single witness, written up after the fact; his level of consciousness during a long resuscitation is contested | Weak. A vivid anecdote resting on one witness, with no record of what the patient said or when, and an open question about how unconscious he was. |
| Maria's Shoe | 1977 | Kimberly Clark (later Clark Sharp), 1984 book chapter | A worn tennis shoe on an outside third-floor window ledge, lace tucked under the heel | Kimberly Clark alone, who found the shoe | Ebbern, Mulligan and Beyerstein (1996) found a shoe on that ledge easy to see from inside the rooms and from the ground | Weak. One witness, written up seven years later, no notes or photographs, the patient never traced, and the key claim of invisibility failed on site. |
| Vicki Umipeg and the Blind Who See | 1973 (Vicki's NDE); study 1997, book 1999 | Kenneth Ring and Sharon Cooper, Journal of Near-Death Studies (1997); Mindsight (1999) | Vicki: her own body, a wedding ring, a doctor and a woman working on her. Nancy: two men standing in a corridor | Vicki: nobody. Nancy: her former partner Leon, interviewed years later | The famous case is uncorroborated by the authors' own account; the one corroborated case involves a recently blinded woman and an event a witness was present for | Weak. A striking pattern of reported sight, but the headline case has no independent check and the best-checked one is modest. |
| The AWARE Studies: One Patient and a Thousand Shelves | 2008 to 2012 (AWARE); 2014 to 2020 (AWARE II) | Sam Parnia et al., Resuscitation (2014, 2023) | A 57-year-old man recalled an automated voice saying 'shock the patient' and a man in blue scrubs and a blue hat | The study team, against his medical records | No hidden image in his room; everything he reported could be heard or guessed, and his timing was inferred, not measured | Moderate. The best prospectively documented single case, but auditory, with no EEG and no visual target; the image tests across both studies scored zero. |
| Miss Z and the Number on the Shelf | 1968 | Charles Tart, Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research (1968) | The five-digit target 25132, and that the paper was lying flat | Charles Tart, who chose and placed the target | She was not watched continuously, the room was not designed to rule out normal viewing, and the result was never repeated | Disputed. A genuine 1-in-100,000 hit, but under controls that critics showed were too loose to exclude ordinary means. |
| Al Sullivan and the Surgeon Who Flapped | 1988 | Emily Williams Cook, Bruce Greyson and Ian Stevenson, Journal of Scientific Exploration (1998) | His surgeon, Hiroyoshi Takata, standing over his open chest and 'flapping' his elbows; two surgeons working on his leg | Cardiologist Anthony LaSala and surgeon Takata, interviewed by Greyson in 1997 | Investigated nine years later; Takata could not confirm he did it in this operation; the habit could have been seen or heard about outside the window of unconsciousness | Moderate. An idiosyncratic detail confirmed by two physicians, one of whom heard it soon after surgery, but checked nearly a decade on. |
| Penny Sartori's Patient 10 | During a study run 1998 to 2003; reported 2006, 2008 | Penny Sartori, Paul Badham and Peter Fenwick, Journal of Near-Death Studies (2006); Sartori's 2008 monograph | A doctor shining a light in his eyes, the nurse cleaning his mouth with a long suction catheter and a pink sponge, a physiotherapist peering round the curtains | The nurse (Sartori herself), the physiotherapist, and the consultant's entry in his medical notes | He was unconscious but not in cardiac arrest, the actions were explained aloud or felt, and the authors concede he could have heard them; the hidden symbol was not seen | Moderate. Prospective and recorded by a witness who was there, but the perceived events were all within reach of hearing and touch, and the one true visual test failed. |
| The Hidden Targets: What the Controlled Tests Found | 1990s to 2020 | Parnia et al. (2001, 2014, 2023); Sartori (2008); reviewed by Greyson (2014) | No hidden visual target has been identified in a published hospital study | The study teams | Few patients report OBEs at all, and most arrests happen away from the targets, so the samples are tiny | Negative. Small samples, but every visual test so far has scored zero, and that is the one result that would have been decisive. |
What the table shows
No case reaches Strong, and it is worth saying why, because the pattern is consistent. The cases with excellent documentation (Pam Reynolds, the AWARE patient, Sartori's Patient 10) are the ones where the verified details turn out to be things the patient could have heard, or that happened while the brain was still working. The cases with the most dramatic details (Maria's shoe, Vicki Umipeg) are the ones with the weakest records. The one striking laboratory hit, Miss Z, came under controls that critics found too loose, and it was never repeated.
Meanwhile the direct test, a hidden image only visible from above, has been run in hospitals for more than twenty years, mostly by researchers sympathetic to the idea. It has not produced a single visual hit. That does not settle the matter: the samples are small, and most cardiac arrests happen far from the targets. But it means the anecdotes now have a controlled record to answer to. See The Hidden Targets.
Two findings cut against easy dismissal, and deserve a fair hearing. People who are apparently deeply unconscious register more than we used to assume, and AWARE II found brain activity compatible with consciousness returning as long as 35 to 60 minutes into CPR. Both make awareness during resuscitation more plausible. Both also point to a brain that is, at least intermittently, still working.
Also in this section
Robert Monroe and the Gateway: the radio executive who wrote Journeys Out of the Body, founded what became the Monroe Institute, and was tested in the lab by Charles Tart; plus the 1983 Army assessment of the Gateway process, which we host in the library.
Know a case we should add, or think a rating is wrong? Send the primary source: the paper, book and page, not a video summary. Cases are added as their sources are checked.
Discussion
No account needed. You'll post as Anonymous Coward, and that ID stays the same for you on this thread.
No approved comments yet. Be the first.
Preview
Back to Home | Image sources & credits | Rules
We do not vouch for the claims in these texts. Comments that attack people for their race, religion or ethnicity are removed.
We do not vouch for the claims in these texts. Comments that attack people for their race, religion or ethnicity are removed.