THE CHRISTMAS LIE: It's Bigger Than You Think

A   R   T   I  C   L   E





What do we really know about "Near Death Experiences", and what do we know, that we don't want to know? Find out the "whole story" about "Near Death Experiences", including the parts, they would prefer you never knew.






If you are like most Americans, you are probably a little interested or fascinated by "Near Death Experiences". But you are probably also, a little skeptical. And lately, you have heard, that "science" has demonstrated that it is all just the result of "brain chemistry", that naturally occurs during "brain death". So, NDEs do not really tell us anything about "life after death", after-all.

What you are going to find out, in the article below, however, is that is not really "the truth" about NDEs, at all.   That is the work of a "propaganda" campaign driven primarily by ideologues, who simply want that TO BE the narrative that is "believed.  (And that "narrative" is not coming from "science". It is coming from "propaganda") But unfortunately, the source of that ideological propaganda, is given unwarranted "preferential treatment" by certain parts of the "Scientific establishment".

And you might be "shocked" to discover, why, they receive that preferential treatment. It is not because of anything, having to do with  "science". In fact, it is quite the opposite. (An effort to "squelch" "scientific investigation")


But it's not just, that the cause of this preferential treatment, is bad enough on it's own. It is also true, that the presentation and argument, being given that very same preferential treatment, is also, a demonstrably false narrative.

It is "false" by way of "fact". (Not opinion) In other words, the "facts", which are being presented "as facts", are not even "factually" true. And yet other "facts", which are "real facts", are likewise being "suppressed".  So in other words, there's some intentional "lying going on". And that lying, is happily "tolerated", simply because of the demographics of who, and what, is doing the "lying". A clear "double-standard" that would be tolerated by no other group.


So if you are "trying" to figure out "what the truth is", concerning NDEs, chances are, you are going to have to do a lot of investigative research your own, and then, "cut through" the layers upon layers, of propaganda lies" and misrepresentations, to finally "get to the truth" about it. (Because there is a lot you will have to "see through")

And if you don't have the months and years to invest in such a project, you might want to read the article below.  Things are not always as they are presented, and that would nowhere be more true, than concerning "explanations" of the "Science"of "Near Death Experiences" (NDEs).  Which is, in many presentations under that genre of title, not even really "Science" at all. It is the "suppression" of a "science", that is completely "unwanted".

Find out WHY? And whose behind this "suppression of Science" concerning "the science of", Near Death Experiences.



The research into "Near Death Experiences" is obviously fascinating research, and has advanced a very good documented understanding of the "experience" of "dying".  But it is not the "whole story" of what happens "at death" (once "death" is "final"). What does a "dead person" actually experience, 10, 30 or 60 days later? (when they are "finally dead")  Nobody knows, unless they are a prophet.  "Death" in it's "final form", maybe very different, than the transient "experience of dying".

In the U.S., an estimated 9 million people have reported an NDE, according to a 2011 study in Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. Most of these near-death experiences result from serious injury that affects the body or brain.
-  "Can Science Explain Near Death Experiences?". Discover Magazine. 2022-03-10.

So, it would be a mistake to surmise (too much) on that research, which is like a "snapshot" of what people experience when they are "dying" or shortly after "clinical death" (prior to full "biological death").  It is like trying to figure out a whole "football game" by watching the "opening act" of singing of the "National Anthem" only. You wouldn't deduce from those opening scenes, where the entire stadium is in unity, patriotism and song, a violent battle on the grid-iron, was just about to get started. And it may be that the final state of "death", and the temporary transition of "dying", are just that different, as well.

But what this research did document  concerning "Near Death Studies", was that "consciousness continued" after the body had ceased it's functions, in any measurable way. (And been medically declared, "dead")  This "news" was greeted with immense "hostility" from Atheists, even in the "scientific community", who worked with the zeal of a fundamentalist missionary, to discredit not only the research, but the entire discussion of it, at all.  It challenged a "basic premise" in Atheism, and "laid bare" it's assumptions concerning both "life" and "death" and their lack of understanding (philosophically) of "human consciousness". Which despite the research, has not fundamentally changed. The justification for this entrenched position is the claim, that there are "chemicals in the brain".  And of course, there are. But that is not all, there is, in the "brain". There is also "electricity","electromagnetism","energy" and "consciousness". And... all these other things are just as "real" as the "chemistry".


Whenever something becomes "lucrative", fraud and abuse, becomes it's next best friend. And not everything that is "turned into a book", or "a movie" has any "truth to it", other than to "make money".   "Pop-culture" has a way of "exploiting" and "capitalizing" everything for money, and reported "NDEs" are no exception. The article below is not written to justify, any of these productions or publications. Most of which are probably in some way, distortions or caricatures,  of a most serious topic.

It has to be acknowledged, that even in the "reporting" of NDE experiences, the "word" of the "patient" is the only source of information (other than the medical data on record at time of death). And included in the "collection" of thousands of interviews and cases, over decades of collection, are certainly some, that are simply fraud. What researchers have tried to do, rather than look at any single one case, is synthesize all of them into "generally recognizable patterns". (And call for "scientific investigation") into what has been "learned".

Not every report of an NDE is real. (Just because the person says so) The most "real" information about this topic, is probably the least ever heard, and the very information, even the researchers, are "embarrassed" to publicize. That is the nature of many things, in a society driven exclusively by fame, power, or monetary gain.  This topic, would be no exception, to the rules of human behavior.

However, having acknowledged all that, recently it has been claimed, that NDEs, have been fully "solved" (by "science"). There is definitely and conclusively "nothing to them" but the "brain chemistry" of a "dying brain".  End of story. The only problem with that claim, is that, it is prematurely leaping, to some major conclusions, and may be an intentionally false presentation.  Not an accident, or a mistake, or an exaggeration, but an intentionally false presentation, of what has been really "discovered". (which in reality, can fit into a "thimble")  It's not "nearly" as "conclusive" as is being "presented", from these sources.




Science is a good thing. The more scientific studies are done on a topic, the more is actually known about it. Real science finds the truth, and courageously lets the facts, fall where they may, for better or worse. (At least it is "supposed to", anyway) And that is the only kind of science, anyone who loves science, should really be interested in, no matter what their personal "beliefs" happen to be. Atheist or Religious alike. 

NDE researchers literally begged for decades, for "science" to "take up investigation" into "Near-Death Studies". They were treated with "contempt and disdain" for even "talking about the subject". When "logically", such an "investigation", should have been greeted with "open arms", as an "inevitably" for "modern science".    But everyone could see the "problem" it created for materialistic "philosophies", including "Atheism".
About seven-in-ten U.S. atheists are men (68%). The median age for atheists is 34, compared with 46 for all U.S. adults. Atheists also are more likely to be white (78% vs. 66% of the general public)
10 Facts About Atheists - Pew Research Center
As a result, this entire topic, was "deathly frightening" to "Atheists" in the scientific world. So frightening, they couldn't even tolerate a discussion of it. (And to many, it still is)  But should "real science" be driven by such personal bias and bigotry? That behavior would not be tolerated by "Theists" in the scientific community, so it is surprising, it was tolerated so well, for so long, from Atheists?   (Double-standards do apply. Note the demographics) Yes. There has been a "shocking history" of "racism" in "science". And it is still present, even in it's preferential "treatment" of "Atheism". (Even though "Atheism" has given it "much less" in return, historically)
The point is, if it had not been for the work of these early "researchers", vehemently denounced by many Atheistic "scientists", there would be no "science" on this topic at all, today, to even speak of, or discuss. And, it would have continued to be a topic of "scientific ignorance" for all. And in that intentionally enforced "ignorance", Atheism would have been content, to find, it's unscrutinized "refuge". (Which is hardly "necessary" if you really do "have the truth")


When ideologues, who are also coincidentally zealots, work in science, they do not always adhere to the ideal of objectivity, that the general public, expects from "science" as a field of study. And that is true about any zealot, no matter what ideology the zealot may have.
In the case of the USSR, communist Atheists, zealous to support their government, would often use the cloak of "science" to pass along government "propaganda", that had nothing to do with "science", and in some cases, clearly contradicted "real science". 

Critics of this behavior, refer to this as a trait symptomatic of something known in philosophy as "scientism". Which they separate from "science". Noting there is a huge difference between the two. Both in how they approach "science" and how they handle "truths" which are "discovered" from it. (i.e., epistemology). 

The belief that scientific methods can be applied to all problems, with the consequent application of inappropriate scientific methods in unsuitable circumstances.
With this subject (along with many others) "Scientific" sources, which are driven by "philosophical assumptions" from "scientism", simply do not have the "intellectual capacity" to be transparent, detached or objective with the "science" they "present" on this subject. Because prior to being literally forced, by public demand, to address it, they would not even have tolerated the discussion of it. (At all) No matter what the "science" would be, to come.
Finally, slowly, some small efforts have emerged "from science", (largely in the "shadow of these "protests") which have added light "to the light" at the end of the tunnel.  And what those "discoveries" mean, has created an opportunity for debates, which some prefer never happen.  In the same circles that opposed any science at all, and now oppose debating any further, it has been claimed, the mysteries of NDEs have been "fully solved" (by "science"). And as suspected, they are nothing but "brain chemistry". (move on, there's "nothing to see here")

But actually, discovering there "might be" some "brain chemistry" involved, in what the brain is doing, during this time, is hardly the "end of the story". In fact, it is really only the beginning.


Making "sense" of what has actually, really been "discovered", gets quickly lost, in the shadow of slanted philosophically driven presentations.  But these are usually not the best source of real information. Because often they will make statements that are exaggerated, push false or stretched conclusions, or make claims that are not even really true. Or they will simply choose to leave out relevant information, that counters or balances, the argument they are trying to persuade you into accepting.
To be fair, some sources, which are "religious" make false "scientific claims". And some sources, which are "scientific" are making false religious claims.  And so mistakes and offenses, occur on both sides. This article however,  is going to focus on the "argument" (dealing with theology) being advanced by Atheists, in "scientific circles", and why it is an "insufficient" argument. (And is not anywhere near, "in current science", what is being commonly and publicly implied or claimed).

(And the argument itself, actually contains substantial problems) Both in terms of "science" and "theology" (for Atheism). The "Science" on "Near Death Experiences" is not nearly the "Death of NDEs" as some have attempted to claim (and actually entitled, their own articles). In fact, the exact opposite is true. "Science" on NDEs is not the "End" of NDEs as an issue for Atheism, it's just the "beginning". And here is why.



1. There are chemicals/drugs that reportedly, can roughly reproduce the experiences of the Near-Death experience. (described as reproducing "a tunnel", feeling "out of your body", "seeing dead relatives" "bright lights", etc.)

2. There is electrical activity in the brain, (up to 30 seconds), after cessation of bodily function. (from 1 case)

3. Some people who simply "believed" they were "going to die", also experienced NDE experiences.

4. Descriptions of what is "experienced" often include "culturalized expectations".


Therefore it is argued, that these facts prove, NDEs are the result of "completely natural processes" that occur during "brain-death". And there is "nothing to them" other than "brain-chemistry". Thus Atheism is vindicated, and the subject of NDEs can now be "dismissed".




It is not known, however, whether levels of DMT change in a meaningful way in the human brain near death, so its role in the phenomenon remain controversial.

This study has significant weaknesses because it is based on purely subjective reportssome taken decades after the event. Similarly, there is no way to substantiate the accounts in the Erowid collection as there is no way to prove that any individual took the drug they claimed or believed they were taking. This makes it all the more remarkable that a linguistic analysis of stories derived in this manner could discriminate among different drug classes in their similarities to NDEs.

Linking near-death experiences and the experience of taking ketamine is provocative yet it is far from conclusive that both are because of the same chemical events in the brain.

September 10, 2019

Please read CAREFULLY and CLOSELY the "details" above of what is being called "science", and how this "science" was actually "deduced".




In the "Atheist Cottage Industry", zealous Atheists, will often claim extremely exaggerated or bogus things, when it comes to "science".  Going so far to the extreme, as claiming "science" is "infallible" and that it has "created life from a test tube". (Both extremely "false claims")

It was common in Youtube Atheist videos, (for years) to hear the claim, that "life" had been "created" in a "test-tube" (conclusively proving "God" didn't "do it"). When in reality, the only thing that had really ever been successfully "created" (in the best case scenario) was a few "amino acids" commonly found in "soil fertilizer". And that experiment "succeeded" only by using the wrong compositions for the early "Atmosphere".  But you would never hear "that information" from those sources.

Can you overdose on melatonin? While melatonin is a hormone naturally produced in the body, taking too much supplementary melatonin can disrupt your circadian rhythm... It may also cause other unwanted side effects. So, yes, you can technically overdose on melatonin.
- HEALTHLINE.COM,,can%20technically%20overdose%20on%20melatonin.
When it comes to NDEs, it is common to hear Atheists, dogmatically claim, they have "proven" NDEs are "caused by chemicals in the Brain".  But that is not actually true.  They have found some "chemicals", that are also "in the brain" (that [according to verbal testimony decades after the event] "induced" feelings of "disassociation","euphoria" and "bright lights") when specifically, given in "the  right dose".  Therefore, that "must be" what it is.
But they have not gotten even "close" to "identifying" these chemicals "as they are in the brain" actually doing that. (That is the "giant leap" for mankind) they also made concerning, creating "life" from a "test-tube" (which also never really happened)

PS. Just because a "chemical" is "in your brain" doesn't mean you can take it "at any dose", and it will "always do the same thing".  (Dose level is everything, as to what any "chemical" does)  "Medicine" can also be a "poison" in the wrong "dose" level (though the same chemical)


1. Chemical "simulation" - beside the above point, that it has not really even happened, ..."chemical simulation" (even if hypothetically granted) is not really a "proof" of anything, either, other than the effectiveness of a chemical in "simulating" something.

Similar "chemical" simulations and stimulations, can be produced for all sorts of very "real things" in "biology", "pregnancy", "sexual gender", "comas", "heart attacks", etc., but simulating it chemically, doesn't render what it is "simulating", a "non-reality".  These are all "very real things" despite the fact, they can be "induced artificially" or "simulated" through "chemistry. That's the "nature" of all "biology". (Chemistry is "part of" our biology)

But most people in the public today, under a certain age, are not aware that this "trick" has been used before. It has a very "old" history. Along with "Atheists" claiming anything they do not "agree with", is an "hallucination", one of the other things they have rountinely done, throughout their history, is "gaslighting people" with "duplications". In other words, if I can "fraudulently" "duplicate something", then that "proves", it is not "real". (and the problem is, that virtually anything can be "duplicated").

The "idea" that just because you can "duplicate something", therefore it proves, it is non-existent, is a "trick" that has been used to "discredit" a number of things in the past, for decades, that turned out to be completely and perfectly real. 



This "propaganda trick" was used to "prove" (also by Atheists, using "science" no less) that there "was no such thing, as UFOs". All "sightings" of UFOs are "proven scientifically" to be "swamp gas". Why? Because a "light in the sky" from "swamp gas", can be "duplicated". "Science" has "proven"! it is "swamp gas".

Demonstrations used to be routinely shown how there was no such thing as UFOs, because a "light" could be "reproduced" from "swamp gas". (And many believed this bogus claim (because it was "said to be science"), until the Navy itself, released it's own "videos", documenting it's own encounters with UFOs.)  And it "definitely" was NOT "Swamp gas". The "Scientists" giving the "swamp gas" "simulations", probably fully knew, UFOs were actually real, when they did that. (They also incidently, worked for the government)

In the case of NDEs, "chemical simulation" would just prove you have a "chemical" that simulates it. It doesn't prove the "chemical" is actually, the "trigger", the source of the experience,  or, even if it is, that "the experience" is therefore, "not real" just because there is a "chemical catalyst","by-product" or "mechanism" involved.
(And those are 3 very separate "bridges" that haven't even begun to be "built")  In the "art of sales", the "brain chemical" argument, is what is politely called an "assumptive close".  Duped "consumers" that "buy that sell", and then discover "the truth" afterwards, however, usually, just angrily call it "lying".


There are literally over 100 different "chemicals" in the "brain". (Pick one, it's probably there) As with any "chemical" however, the "dosage level" is is the "entire discussion", as to what it is, and what it will do.  (When does it happen, and at what "dose" does this occur) Without which, there is no "proof" of "anything. ("Salt" is in the "brain" too), but it doesn't mean your "saltine cracker" was "just" an "hallucination".
In fact, such a claim, that it is only "brain chemistry",  could just as easily provide a "contrarian argument".

If it is identified to a specific "chemical", (such as DMT, or Ketamine) and it is known that the "chemical catalyst" requires a certain "dosage level" to "trigger", but then that "dosage level" (threshold), is ultimately not present in all NDE cases, then the "chemical simulation" argument has actually "back fired", and proven, it cannot be explained by the "chemistry". (That would not be "good" for Atheism, since that is their entire argument) In fact, it might even be the "undoing" of the Atheist argument, completely. Forever. (That is why they historically have "avoided" further "scientific research" whenever possible) And have argued to stop it.
The truth is, "current science" is nowhere even close to "solving" this "puzzle". What "chemical"? What "dose"? How is it "triggered"? When?
The "brain chemical" argument is currently nothing more than "speculation" and "assumption", as there "still" is "no available science" that can currently answer these questions. (Despite the fact there could have been, maybe even years ago, if the "topic" had not been vehemently "fought")


But that is not even the end of the problem, with the "chemistry" argument. "Chemistry", even if found to be an element, even if at the right threshold "dosage level", even if always 100% of the time present, (and that is a very high bar to cross, no where near the current research on the subject), still would be a moot argument, theologically. Why?
"Chemistry" is always present, in everything the body does.  When you "sleep", when you "eat", when you "dream", when you have "sex", when you "run", when you "pray", when you get "angry", and when you "lie".  "Chemistry" is "always" present. So naturally, there "would be" "chemistry present" in an NDE. (But what does that "mean"?)

"Blood tests" are given to find the "presence" of every disease, medicine diagnoses. The presence of these elevated and suppressed "chemicals" in the blood, do not mean they are "caused" by the chemical. The "chemistry" is simply the "marker", the condition has really "occurred". Finding "chemical markers" for NDEs would be perfectly consistent, with the way "biology" functions. But it would have no relevance, on it's significance, reality, or meaning. And it certainly wouldn't "prove" it "didn't exist", anymore than a "blood-test" from "Quest Diagnostics" showing you have "diabetes", means "it is not real"Actually, such a "marker" would prove it's "really happened" to you.
 It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings to search out a matter.


Someday, hypothetically,  you might even be able to use "Quest Diagnostics" to test for a "blood marker", for whether or not, you really had a "real" NDE, or not! But, it wouldn't change how the experience, was "interpreted theologically", (At all). Antagonistic Atheists, wouldn't be able to understand that, because of the constraints of their "ideology".  But, the only thing that "discovering the chemistry" would change,  is that hypothetically, Quest Diagnostics would be selling more "blood tests". (Because some people would want "to prove" their experience was "the real kind") and not "just imagined".

"Explanations" do not equate to "non-existence". We can "explain" how it "rains". That doesn't mean, it no longer does. In "theology", the truth that "God makes it rain", is not removed or "invalidated", because of the laws of molecular precipitation, that "explain how it happens", are "discovered". (In fact, they were discovered by Robert Dalton, a Quaker, at Manchester Theological Seminary) And... He never once stopped thinking, "God makes it rain".

He simply discovered, "how" God accomplished the process.  (Which from the perspective of Reformation theology, was the "honor of Science" to do)

Not only are Atheists citing "science" that doesn't really exist, they are jumping to some very big "theological conclusions" that are not "theologically valid", even if their exaggerations on the topic, were completely "true" as they "present them".



It was the assertion of "Theism" 5 thousand years ago, that the entire universe, came from "energy" (not matter).  At this same time in history, forward even for a few more millennia, Atheism, was busy declaring, the world had always been here, and always would be, "as you see it now". And... everything in it that "mattered", was never anything but "matter". (Ideas that are now laughable in "science)

2. Residual electrical activity in the brain. It has been "believed", for millennia, that there was residual "consciousness" in the corpse of the dead. Some extended this period up to 3 days. Finding, there may in fact, be a basis in "scientific evidence" for this "belief", hardly advances the case for "Atheism", or dispenses of the entire topic of NDEs as a "challenge" for Atheism, in their ideology. Residual electrical currents in the "brain" of the dead, validate a millennial-old belief, held in numerous funerary traditions in theism, all over the world. The development of this discovery, does much more, to advance "Theism's view" of the dead (and death), than Atheism's.

"Discovering this" certainly does not render anything "conclusively negative" in regards to a theistic view of life and death. In fact, the exact reverse is actually "true".  And because "electricity" introduces the subject of "Quantum Physics", you now have "documented science" providing the "connecting piece" (bridge) to the very real element, of "the super+natural" in NDEs. ("super+nature") See below.



3. Some people who simply "believed" they were going to die (but really weren't), experienced NDEs. This is "claimed" by the zealous "Atheist", to "disprove" the "validity" of ALL NDEs. (Since there was no real "threat of death", only "the belief there was") The "belief" activated the "heaven-like experience". (Which was "chemically induced" in the "brain")

But, that very "experience"  too, has been historically and traditionally, anecdotally reported, in religious circles for centuries. (There is nothing new about that observation) "I thought I was going to die", "my life flashed before my eyes". The sudden release of "adrenaline", in the blood, probably does occur during this experience. So what does that "mean"? (Theologically?) All "theology" is no longer "valid" or "real", because there is something called "adrenaline"?

Every "experience" we have in our "bodies" is connected to our "biology". But once again, it doesn't address the meaning, significance, or reality of the experience. (Actually, what it really "proves" is something that Atheists, are not going to want to hear, at all) 


1.  "Evidence" of a providential "design"? It is very difficult to credibly explain how such a "dying process", was shaped by "Natural selection". (Because survival is naturally required, in order for the mechanics of "Natural selection" to occur)  Simply citing "it evolved" to help us "run from bears", is no different and no more "scientific", than simply saying "God did it". It might suffice as a "statement of personal belief", but it doesn't provide anything near "science" on the question. Other than an Atheist's own "religious affirmation". (It may have had nothing to do with "running from bears", at all)

How then did it really "get there"? Why is it there? Why is it that this is the exact "sequence" programmed "biologically" into your very DNA, to occur (on demand?)  Prepare to meet thy maker? (In your DNA?) "It's there to help us "run from bears"? (How did a "theological experience" get into your DNA "death sequence" coding?)..and "evolve through "natural selection"? (when "survival" is required for that to happen?)

Once again, the "explanations", create as many problems, as they "solve", and this one is really no exception.  The observation that some people have NDEs when it is only "believed" death is imminent, also opens the door to the "biological consequence" of "belief". (A door which can lead to many different places, Atheists would probably prefer not to go) See below.


2. Atheism has long held, "belief" has no "consequence" because it is "imaginary only". If it is demonstrated "belief" has a "direct biological consequence", and that it is significant enough to "change biological chemistry", which then in turn generate "brain chemistry" which then produce "heaven-like NDE experiences", how has this actually "helped" the case for Atheism? Now you have "bio-chemical mechanics" demonstrating the "efficacy" of "theological belief" to "induce heaven".  What you have really done in that "assertion" is "prove the theology" of "Theism".

From the perspective of "classical theism", you couldn't have asked for a "bigger present" than this. Verification  (from bio-chemical mechanics itself) that "faith/belief" produces one's "experience" of "heaven".  You might as well turn that into a "bumper sticker" and pass them out in the Church parking lot, on Sunday morning, and then ask the "preacher" if he would like an "offering" too, to go with it, (while they play Amazing Grace, on the pipe "organ").

In fact, the "author" of this argument, fully deserves a "thank you card" and probably a "check" for services rendered, from the  entire "Southern Baptist Convention" (And they could also cancel all their "Apologetics" classes, in all their "seminaries") as they won't be needed, anymore. (This is a perfect example of an Atheist, who just choked on a gnat, and swallowed a camel)

He probably doesn't even realize what he's done, however. He's probably still grinning at himself when he passes a mirror, admiring how clever he was to come up with that one. (Wonder how long it will take him, to figure out what he really did?)  Maybe, when he finally hears, he's being quoted verbatim, by illiterate, Pentecostal snake-handling Churches, in the Appalachian mountains,  in the "coal-mining counties", of rural West Virginia, Kentucky and East Tennessee, it will "finally dawn on him", what he actually did? Maybe?

(Just in case you're not familiar with "Snake-handling Churches" they believe that by intentionally exposing themselves to "Near Death Experiences" by "handling poisonous snakes & drinking poison" and "hopefully "surviving" [which often doesn't happen] they will "display the glory of God")



4. Descriptions of what is "experienced" often include "culturalized expectations". Yes, that is true. But since you are proposing this as "a causative explanation", then you are also contradicted, by "the anomalies" (when it doesn't happen that way).

It makes perfect sense that "information", would be "translated" into "consciousness", consistent with a person's own internalized "symbol dictionary", which comes from their "culture". And that this would occur during this process, should be surprising to no one.  "Information" is being "processed", the only way it can be.  The same thing happens when you are "asleep". "Information" from your environment, is "translated" as "dream symbolism". That "dream symbolism" is always "personal" to the person. That doesn't mean, there is no "information" in what is being "dreamed".  The same would be true concerning "cultural symbolism". (But that "symbolism" is not the "cause of itself") It occurs, because something else is happening.

"Culturalized expectations" are only a "good causative explanation", when that is all, that ever occurs. But when that is not what occurs, it is no longer a "good causative explanation".  And the anomalous occurrence of what is "not expected", then becomes what rules that "explanation" out, as a universal "cause".

"Causes" have to "cause" what happens. And if "what happens" is not consistent, with that "cause", it also demonstrates the "cause", may actually be something else (at least in the case of the "anomalies"). Which do occur, and frequently enough, to rule out this theory, with any consistency, as "the cause", for what is "experienced".

Or perhaps, it could even create a whole "New theory" that the anomalies, are an entirely "separate class" of particularly "genuine NDEs". There are numerous cases, where what was completely "unexpected", is what actually occurred, in the experience. As in the case of "hellish-like" experiences, which are frequent, transcend "culture" and "belief systems", and for the most part, were wholly "unexpected".

For a "cause" to work, as "the explanation", the  "cause" must be present in "every case" which occurs (because that's what "caused it"). Otherwise it's simply a "commonly associated symptom". And "psychological expectation", while common, is not consistent enough, to "always be the cause" of what is experienced.  And, for it to really be  "the cause", it would have to be. (But isn't) 

People familiar with "science" who are promoting this explanation, are fully aware of that problem. (But promote it anyway) Simply because, they have "no where else to go", because their "ideological assumptions", intellectually, give them no "freedom" to go anywhere else. They are "painted" into a "corner".

The "Culturalized expectation" theory, creates problems for Atheism, as well. If  your "culturalized expectation" as an Atheist, is "nothingness", would that not then "become your experience"? Because that is what you "expect"? And Atheists have NDEs as well.  The problem is, Atheists never "report" from their NDE, that they experienced "nothingness" Which is clearly not the "culturalized expectation", created by belief in Atheism. Why the discrepancy? (If the "expectation theory" is really true?)

And some very famous examples of Atheists, have credited NDEs, with their "religious conversion", after "unexpectedly" experiencing OOBE, and "Hell"And... "Atheists" weren't the only ones who "unexpectedly" experienced the "unexpected".  The same has even happened to "Ministers", who never "expected" such an "experience".




1. Explaining OOBEs (out of body experiences), which occur during NDEs, based on "chemistry" is a pretty "simple task". But just "feeling" like your "out of your body" is not really "the bar" that has to be "met". The "bar" which has to be legitimately "met", is "explaining" based on that "chemistry" how "remote viewing" also occurs, and subjects were able to recall events, conversations, and details of things, they had no "access to", and no possible way of knowing.

No one has come close to this "bar". The best that can be done with it, is "denial" (simply deny it ever really happens). But it does. And no "chemistry" has ever been discovered to produce that result. And even if it were possible to find a "chemistry" that could do that, would not the discovery of such a chemistry, completely invalidate the idea, consciousness was restricted to the physical body? (Which would constitute, a major "collapse" of a basic premise in Atheism?)  Which is the "real fear" haunting "Scientism" Atheists in any "discussions over this topic".  Thus, the sign hung by the NDE door that reads, "No Science Wanted".


2. If the "brain" and it's "chemistry" are the sum total of all that is happening, then it would be perfectly impossible to have "experiences" which were "unexpected". Because, according to this claim, it is the "expectation itself", which produces the"chemistry" which then produces the "experience" (based on "expectations").

Therefore "unexpected experiences" (such as an Atheist experiencing "hell") or a ("very religious person" having a "hellish-like" experience), would not be "possible". But they happen. So that claim as a causative explanation, is simply not consistent with the data.


3. Because "clinical death" in NDE patients, is caused by a number of different "situational" and "medical" conditions, which vary from "car accidents" to "heart attacks", to "coma patients" that "code", the "brain chemistry" is often vastly different, in each patient.

Ascribing a single "chemical" to all these different "conditions", and finding it in every case, in the exact threshold "dosage amount" needed, (in every case), to actually "induce the experience", is not only "totally unrealistic", it will prove to be a practical "impossibility" to ever (track and document) i.e., "prove".  Thus, it is very kind of "unverifiable claim", "Atheism" often "mocks".

But there is a lot more going on in "the brain", than  "just chemistry". There is also "consciousness" and "electrcity".
But even if (in the best case scenario imaginable), it happens, you are still confronted with the challenge of how that "chemical" produces "Out of body consciousness" capable of observing and reporting events, not physically accessible.

All the "chemistry" would provide, would be the "chemical catalyst" for the "OOBE" "feeling", not what happens next, after documented, non-localization of consciousness, actually occurs.  And it was this part of the "phenomena" that got everyone's "attention", as "validation". (No one is really surprised, you might "feel" somewhat "disembodied" on your "death-bed") 

It was the hard documentation of "non-localized consciousness", capable of  accurately reporting details of "remote viewing" events)  Which the "Atheist Theory" of "Brain Chemistry", does nothing to address, but engage in "plausible deniability". (The same thing "politicians do" when they get "caught in a lie")

If a "chemistry" really were ever "discovered", to be capable of chemically inducing a "non-localization of human consciousness", an "out of body" consciousness, i.e., "a spirit", capable of "observing and reporting", it would not only become a major weapon for "the Pentagon", it also would be the "de facto" end of all Atheism, forever. Atheism's entire materialistic premise, concerning human nature, would be proven permanently "false", forever.

However, take comfort, dear Atheist, nothing even remotely close to that, has ever happened. (But then, that's the problem with the exaggerated "chemistry claim", and OOBEs)  The "Brain Chemistry" argument relies on "modification" of the "facts", to fit the claim. (Because without that "modification", it's clearly "insufficient") Even in the "minds" of those dogmatic Atheistic scientists, who advance it. (They know what it "requires" of them) Thus the "commitment" to "plausible deniability". (But the topic of NDEs, simply "will not die", pardon the pun)



The "primary definition" of the word, "Supernatural" is defined as "of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe".  The word "supernatural" is made up of two words;"Super"+"natural".  "Supernatural" refers to "Super+nature" (meaning nature beyond the senses).  When the term was coined, there was no such knowledge of, or instruments capable of measuring "invisible things", such as "telescopes","microscopes","radio-waves","light-spectrums", etc. All of these instruments allow us to study, what in the past, would have been clearly understood as "the super+natural" (the "invisible world") beyond the "visible observable universe".


That IS the "super+natural" by definition.  Quantum physics is the study of the "super+nature" of the universe (so it definitely exists)  And modern science has also documented (1) there are other "dimensions" of reality (2) a majority of our current universe is made up almost entirely [95%] of "dark matter" and "dark energy", meaning cosmic "structure" that is neither "visible" nor "matter".  Matter and energy that are entirely "super+nature" (i.e., supernatural) in it's essence.

NDEs are a process that engages the laws of quantum physics, as such they are "by definition" "super+natural"




Life is Possible After Death According to Quantum Physics › watch
Jul 9, 2019 — When a person temporarily dies, this Quantum information is released ... His new scientific theory suggests that death is not the terminal ...

There is Life After Death According to Quantum Physics - Edgy ... › life-after-death-according-to-quantu...
Mar 7, 2019 — Lanza claims that quantum physics has proved the existence of life after death, that energy is immortal, and so is life. For Lanza, we believe ...

Does the answer to life after death lie in quantum physics? › Culture › Books
In his latest novel, The Place of Quarantine, Vadim Babenko explores a quantum theory suggesting that the mind persists after death.

Quantum Theory Could Explain Life After Death | Faena › aleph › quantum-theory-could...
If consciousness is a quantum phenomenon, it's possible that it continues to exist after the death of the body. ... Today, one of the most discussed topics in ...

The Physics of Death (and What Happens to Your Energy ... › the-physics-of-death
Energy cannot be created or destroyed, so where does our energy go when we die? After death, the body redistributes energy into other forms.

Biocentrism: There's no time and no death - Ideapod › new-theory-based-quantum-physi...
Aug 5, 2017 — So there we have it. A new theory of quantum physics suggests there's life after death, because death is an illusion. Energy never dies. In that ...

There is no death, only a series of eternal 'nows' | Aeon Ideas › ideas › there-is-no-death-only-a-series-...
May 2, 2016 — Biocentrism sheds some light. Werner Heisenberg, the eminent Nobel physicist who pioneered quantum mechanics, once said: 'Contemporary science, ...

Life after death: Soul continues on a QUANTUM level - Daily ... › News › Science
Aug 21, 2018 — According to some well-respected scientists, quantum mechanics allows consciousness to live on following the body's eventual demise. While ...

The Impossibility of Being Dead | Psychology Today › blog › biocentrism
Nov 11, 2020 — The key to immortality lies in how quantum physics applies to the everyday world.

Quantum suicide and immortality - Wikipedia › wiki › Quantum_suicide_and...
Quantum suicide is a thought experiment in quantum mechanics and the philosophy of physics. ... The experimenter must be rendered dead (or at least unconscious) on a ...

Near-Death Studies and Modern Physics - UNT Digital Library › vol18-no3-143PDF
tions involving the symmetry of particles and the quantum theoreti cal mathematics of particle spin. In superstring theory, particles are nothing more than ...
37 pages

Quantum Theory Proves Consciousness Moves To Another ... › Good Science >>
Lanza also believes that multiple universes can exist simultaneously. In one universe, the body can be dead. And in another it continues to exist, absorbing ...

The science of dying - DW › the-science-of-dying
Apr 17, 2019 — What do near-death experiences show? Do we have a soul? Five aspects about dying from biology, medicine and physics.

Quantum physics proves that there IS an afterlife, claims scientist › article-2503370 › Quant...
Nov 14, 2013 — Robert Lanza claims the theory of biocentrism says death is an illusion · He said life creates the universe, and not the other way round · This ...

Consciousness and afterlife - PsyArXiv Preprints › fmvye › downloadPDF
by KLS Dayathilake — particles of neurons function according to quantum mechanics; the brain, neurons, ... that when a brain dies, the two ultraquantum particles.

Cosmological implications of near-death experiences - The ... › sites › 2017/01 › NDE65PDF
by B Greyson · 2011 · Cited by 16 — but rather in 21st-century quantum physics that includes consciousness in its ... called "near-death experiences", where those who appear to have died ...
18 pages

Scientist: Quantum physics can prove there's an afterlife - CNET › culture › scientist-quantum-phy...
Nov 16, 2013 — Death is merely what we think we see. In fact, everything is. In Lanza's view, though: "By treating space and time as physical things, science ...
Missing: DYING ‎| Must include: DYING

Physics of the Soul: The Quantum Book of Living, Dying › Physics-Soul-Quantum-Rein...
Physics of the Soul: The Quantum Book of Living, Dying, Reincarnation and ... books lately on physics and its relationship to life, death and immortality.
 Rating: 4.2 · ‎63 reviews

Do we ever really die? One woman's immortality theory is ... › quantum-immortality-vira...
Quantum immortality? Might we never really pass on into nothingness? Has the world ended many times before? Are we in fact ...

Physics might create a backdoor to an afterlife –  ... › article › mg24833122-...
Dec 9, 2020 — Quantum information can never be destroyed, so some of the essence of you could live on after death – but it's not going to help the ...
Missing: DYING ‎| Must include: DYING

Woman's 'quantum immortality' theory that 'we never really die' › News › Weird News › Frisk
Oct 14, 2021 — She goes on to explain the theory that states “nobody ever actually dies” and that “consciousness never experiences death.”.

Is Afterlife Possible? Scientist Reveals the Physics Behind Death › news › buzz › believe-it-or-...
Feb 11, 2022 — Carroll, a physicist specialising in cosmology, gravity, and quantum mechanics, shared his piece of mind regarding this never-ending journey of ...

Human Cells Carry Quantum Information That Exists as a Soul › 2020/03 › quantum-death-hu...
Mar 14, 2020 — The Max Planck physicists are in agreement with British Physicist Sir Roger Penrose who argues that if a person temporarily dies, ...

What is death according to quantum physics? - Quora › What-is-death-according-to-qua...
A body dies, it does not continue to live after death. Death is final. We are bodies; bodies have brains which produce the effect we call mind. Mind is a body ...
11 answers
Non Local Effects in The Process of Dying: Can Quantum ... › publication › 269526081_...
In the days or weeks before death, the dying person may have premonitions, ... Most vest their hopes on emerging theories derived from quantum physics ...

TikToker's Theory On Life After Death Is Blowing Millions Of ... › culture › article › tiktoker-immor...
Oct 14, 2021 — “Quantum immortality theory suggests that nobody ever actually dies, that consciousness never experiences death. Instead, whenever you die ...

Energy Field Changes Approaching and During the Death ... › articles › PMC6438089
by S Peck · 2017 · Cited by 1 — Key word searches used included energy field changes, chakras, death, dying, and patterns. Databases included Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health ...

Wholly life: a new perspective on death - PubMed › ...
by S Mayer · 1989 · Cited by 13 — When caring for the dying, the holistic nurse must be cognizant of many factors involved ... of death in the light of recent discoveries in quantum physics.

How Russian Doll's Quantum Immortality theory really works › russian-doll-quantum-immorta...
Nov 9, 2021 — The Quantum Suicide experiment, though, puts the observer inside the box. What happens when a person is both alive and dead at the same time ...
1 — Martinus Veltman, Who Made Key Contribution in Physics, Dies at 89 ... of the Standard Model, the backbone of quantum physics, died on Jan.

The weirdest idea in quantum physics is catching on - NBC ... › mach › science › weirdest-i...
Oct 22, 2019 — Or maybe in another, you tripped at the top of a cliff and fell to your death — oops. “It's absolutely possible that there are multiple worlds ...

A Theory of Quantum Mechanics Suggests Everyone is Immortal › a-theory-of-quantu...
Mar 12, 2020 — The quantum theory related to quantum suicide is a rather ... the cat exists in a state of being alive and dead, called superposition.

Have You Died? Take the Quantum Immortality Test - Medium › swlh › have-you-died-take-the-q...
May 23, 2019 — One possible explanation is that you may have indeed experienced death in another timeline, but your consciousness continued in an alternate ...

Biocentrism Posits That Death Is Merely Transport into Another › articles › biocentrism-posits-that-...
Mar 3, 2017 — Another competing theory accounts for inconsistencies in quantum physics by stating that the universe is an illusion. It could be for instance, ...

Death is not real as quantum immortality will help humans live ... › World › Weird World
Oct 13, 2021 — Quantum immortality theory suggests that nobody ever actually dies, that consciousness never experiences death. Instead, whenever you die in ...

Woman Shares Theory That We Never Really Die - LADbible › news › news-woman-shares...
Oct 13, 2021 — "Quantum immortality theory suggests that nobody ever actually dies, that consciousness never experiences death. "Instead, whenever you die ...

Does Death Exist? New Theory Says 'No' | HuffPost Life › entry › does-death-exist-ne...
Mar 18, 2010 — But a new scientific theory suggests that death is not the terminal event we think. One well-known aspect of quantum physics is that certain ...

The Many-Worlds Theory - How Quantum Suicide Works › science-questions
When the man dies, the universe is no longer able to split based on the pulling of the trigger. The possible outcome for death is reduced to one: continued ...

Life, Death, and the Quantum Soul - Interalia Magazine › articles › life-death-and-...
Even in hard sciences like physics and chemistry, nothing is fixed. ... Death Makes Life Possible) with Deepak Chopra on the topic of death and dying, ...

Rationale for the existence of souls - The Sunday Guardian Live › Opinion
Aug 12, 2017 — According to some well-respected scientists, quantum mechanics allows ... Sir Roger states if a person temporarily dies, this quantum ...

Hayes Kansas, Quantum Physics, Death, and Dying, Losing ... › pulse › hayes-kansas-quantu...
May 4, 2021 — Nothing like quantum physics to wrap a story about death and dying. The book resonates with me because it shares my view that anything is ...

Quantum Suicide: you never really die | Knappily › ethics › quantum-suicide-you-neve...
Aug 3, 2021 — Erwin Schrödinger's work in quantum mechanics that cemented his status ... both alive and dead, a state known as a quantum superposition, ...



The Death of "Near Death":

Even If Heaven Is Real, You Aren't Seeing It
- Guest Blog, By Kyle Hill on December 3, 2012,
Scientific American


The "pronouncement" from Atheistic sources, who cannot really correctly either define or understand, what the term "God" even refers to, are hardly capable of understanding what the concept in the Scriptures is speaking of, when it mentions "heaven". 

And certainly, if you listen to them explain their understanding of "hell", it is clear, the case is the same there, as well.

And making "theological pronouncements" based on an alleged "simulation" of the "experience", through the (unverified) use of a alleged drug, "it is therefore not heaven", would not even be an accurate assessment, "theologically", there either. Their "theological pronouncements" are also "inaccurate theologically".

Even with the premise of the "false" claim (as you saw above, no such thing actually happened), but, even given (if it actually had)  it would still, not be so easily "dismissed" (theologically) as "definitely not heaven". Here's why.


2Co 12:1  To boast, indeed, is useless for me, for I shall go on to visions and revelations of יהוה.
2Co 12:2  I know a man in Messiah who fourteen years ago – whether in the body I do not know, or whether out of the body I do not know, Elohim knows – such a one was caught up to the third heaven.
2Co 12:4  that he was caught up into paradise - TS2009 Translation

There was obviously some "brain chemistry" going on, in this person who was "caught up to the 3rd heaven", and may have been "out of the body", when Paul cited this event.  But Paul considered it "real" nonetheless. 

Paul did not consider the "brain chemistry" of the "experiencer" involved, to have been a relevent point. The "experience", was still, the "experience". (And it was cited as "authentic")

Rev 4:1  After this I looked and saw a door having been opened in the heaven. And the first voice which I heard was like a trumpet speaking with me, saying, “Come up here and I shall show you what has to take place after this.”
Rev 4:2  And immediately I came to be in the Spirit and the heaven,- TS2009

Likewise, when John "experienced heaven", he too, probably had some "brain chemistry" which was active in his "brain", when he "experienced" this "vision of heaven".  It's pretty hard to have a "functioning brain", without some "chemistry" taking place, to make it "function".  But there was no "confusion" over what he "saw". It was "heaven", and involved a "revelation" about "future events" (prophecy). If he had been "simply hallucinating", he would not have been able to accurately "prophesy" those "future events". (And he did, quite remarkably, if you ever hear the truth about what he prophesied) SEE "Antichrist For Dummies" on this channel, to learn more.

The point being made here is that, just because there was a "chemical in the brain", did not invalidate "theologically" any of these "experiences" of "heaven".  They were not "treated" as "hallucinations" (theologically). The existence of "brain chemistry" either as a catalyst, a mechanism, or a marker, did not render the "experience" the person "experienced" as "non-existent".  It was "still real", in terms of "theology".




For Atheism, the word, "Hallucination" is the universal "catch-all" "phrase" for all things "spiritual".  It is repeated like a "religious confession". But the only problem with that claim, is that while 100 years ago it might have been "plausible", with today's technology and science, it no longer is. In fact, continuing to "insist on it", in the face of what is really known, today, constitutes simply a "denial of fact", or, the promotion of a "deception".

Atheists wrongly think that if they can "identify a chemical in the brain", then the "information" from the "experience" it "produces" (is not real). They can "blame it on the chemical, then dismiss the experience". And here we are are talking about "naturally occurring chemicals" in the brain. But the idea, that because it was induced or accompanied by a "brain chemical", therefore somehow the "information" or "experience" was "not real", is simply another "theological" fallacy, advanced on the part of Atheism, because of it's assumptions and presuppositions. 

Remember now, these are the same people who claim that if "God" really did show up personally, in their own living room, and spoke to them in person, they "still would not believe". (because it would be dismissed, "without evidence" as an "hallucination", and nothing more)  But, in order for something to be an "hallucination", means it "cannot be there" in "reality" (when, in their very own example, it really is).   Which is the whole "point" of their example, to begin with.


And... the "Catholic priest" whom they always "debate", conveniently never follows up with the most logical question to that hypothetical; "But what if the event were "captured" on Video?"  As is explained in the article, "Why God Really Does Exist", there is a "reason" the Catholic Priest, is not really trying too hard, to "win the case" for "the existence of God". Even though, it is [by definition] "fully known" in "Science" to be "real"

Naturally, this most "logical question" is intentionally never asked. "Video documentation" would "remove the possibility"  it was "just an hallucination"But the "Atheist" is conveniently never presented with this "dilemma" to have to "solve".

Despite the fact, that numerous "spiritual things" (all previously dismissed as "hallucinations" by "Atheists"), have been routinely documented on "video" recordings? (Everything from "ghosts" to "orbs" to "lights" to "angels" to "auras" to "dead people") and just about anything else, you can possibly imagine. (or "hallucinate" as the "Atheist" would universally and falsely claim). 

But, "video cameras" do NOT "hallucinate". They "record". You can "misinterpret" what is on a "Video", and you can "fake" a video, but you cannot claim "it's an hallucination". And not all such videos that have ever existed, on earth, are "fakes" and "misinterpretations".  (Thousands of such videos now "exist", and only 1 has to ever be "real") 


An "example" of 1 "fake video" is not "sufficient" to categorically, dismiss them all. Just as, an example of 1 "counterfeit dollar", does not "disprove the existence" or "authenticity", of "all money".  (Even if 9 out of 10 are "fake", remember, there only needs to be 1 (one)), to "disprove" the "universality" of the claim. (And there are hundreds more than just 1)


When there is a "Video Recording" of a "spiritual encounter", and it is documented that there was in fact, something "physically' present to actually be "seen" or "felt", people often relate their heightened sense of "fear". 

That is clear "evidence" of a "brain chemical" known as "adrenaline". (It affects your "brain")  So the question is, did the "brain chemical", also "produce the Video"? Do you believe that anytime there is a "chemical in the brain" doing something, that it therefore means, whatever is seen or experienced (was just all a "hallucination", even when there is "documentation" that it is NOT)? 

Because that is "precisely" the position of Atheist "scientists". (Is that a "reasonable" belief?) Or, is it even a "rational" or "logical" position to hold? (even when there is "clear evidence" to the contrary?)

There have been numerous such video "anomalies", some of which have been investigated, analyzed and documented, (some even by the "security company" responsible for the "camera" system, trying to figure out "what's wrong" with their system?). (So much so, that cable TV has turned  this into a "genre" of "routine junk entertainment")

The phenomena, has historically been so "frequent", it is now part of "pop-culture" entertainment.   (And people sit on their "couch" and "yawn" when they see it) because it is "so common".  "No one" is either "shocked or surprised", by what they see, is now, ...just that "common". (And FYI, no one is "hallucinating" when they see the videos)



2. an unfounded or mistaken impression or notion
(Video surveillance cameras have recorded there was something, literally physically present, to "record") Something "spiritual" that was not "just an hallucination".  "Video cameras" end the "claim" it is "all in your head", and "just an hallucination".  "Atheists" are left with no "explanation" for this "commonly seen" phenomena,  but "plausible deniability" (once again"Atheism" has "lost touch" with "reality" over this issue, and they are "guilty" of becoming, the very thing, they "accuse theists" of doing.  (They are "just hallucinating")

Question: When these "Video surveillance cameras" record this kind of "phenomena", what "brain chemical" caused it to "hallucinate"?

"Atheism" cannot "explain any of this". But "Quantum physics" can. And there are many "Atheists" that are trying to "defend themselves" in the face of "Quantum physics", by claiming it as their own personal property (just because it's "science").  And they wrongly "fancy themselves" as "entitled" to it's "ownership", therefore, and thereby.

But they are having a very very difficult time, with the basic contradiction concerning "reality", it presents to them. (as you can easily see, in the "Google Result" list, shown above) 

"Atheism" is in essence, an antiquated, "obsolete belief system". Trying desperately to "continue living" past it's "expiration date", in history. It was at it's "prime in history" when there were no such things as "video cameras", "Quantum Physics", "the Big Bang", "DNA" and NDEs.
All of which point to an exact "opposite" view of "reality", than what "Atheism" claims. And to the historically educated, "Evolution" is of absolutely no "consolation" to them, either, having emerged from Genesis, itself, in history.
But, that is not the only problem, with "reality", the Atheist is "facing".  The Atheist's basic "assumption" that the presence of "brain chemistry", therefore invalidates "spiritual realities" or even such "theological claims" as "heaven", is ALSO completely mistaken both factually and historically.

It is another "misconception" that comes from the Atheist's "tool-box" of "ignore-ance" on the topic, which they despise, ignore and prefer to "distort". "Consciousness" itself is a "real thing" despite the fact it is also affected by "chemistry".  These two facts, exist simultaneously. Neither one, ruling the other out, as a "reality". The same is true of "brain chemistry" and NDEs.



In many eastern and ancient religions, "drugs" were precisely how "higher consciousness" was thought to be "achieved".  (And they were used "intentionally" for that very purpose)  The "Shamans" who specialized in identifying and preparing these "narcotics" never considered their "visions", and "experiences" they induced, to have been "empty imagination" or "hallucination" only. In fact, the reverse opposite attitude existed in these communities. (They were considered to be "real") and often these experiences were engaged for "prophecy". (Not only thinking the "visions" were real, but real enough to even "glimpse" an accurate view of future events) precognitively.

Ironically, the very "claim", that it is all "brain chemistry", actually originates from the use of just such a "narcotic" [DMT] used by "Shamans" in Brazil, for that very purpose

Enough to such a degree, that these "cultures", actually used these "drug induced" processes, as a source for "prophecy". And, as anyone knows, in order to "stay in business" as a source of "prophecy", you actually have to come up with some, that really happen.  Historical testimony, from these same cultures, said that many did. And in fact, so much so, they had a "loyal customer base" in these same societies, that patronized them.  The Delphi oracle, in Greece, was a particularly famous example of this, and it's reliance on intoxicating fumes, to "expand consciousness", was a routine part of obtaining it's "famously accurate prophecies".

Just because a "chemical" was the process, by which something beyond a normal "state of consciousness" was "perceived", in no way necessitates the automatic conclusion, that therefore what was was "perceived"  had "no reality" to it. In fact, there is a very long historical testimony, that demonstrates the exact opposite, was often observed to be the case.


When someone is "highly critical" of something, it is natural for them to cite every criticism that they can validly think of in denouncing it, condemning it, persuading against it, etc.  And no one was more "critical" of the use of "narcotics" to access "prophetic ecstasy" than the "prophets" of Monotheism.  (Who saw it as a form  of "demonic practice")  The "penalty" for which, under the Torah, was a "capital offense" punishable by "death".  It's really hard to get more "critical" than that. And...

These practices were condemned in Monotheistic theological traditions, and forbidden as "sorcery". But they were not condemned, because "there was nothing to them". In fact, the reverse was true. Even where they were "condemned" there is no testimony, in the Scriptures (Old or New Testament) that "declared", everything they categorically "produced" [from that "sorcery"], was ever thought to be, "non-real" and "all just in their head".

In the Scriptures, the view was quite the opposite and openly said to be the case. Not only were the words of such pagan "prophets" quoted by Paul, during his "evangelism" efforts (Acts 17:28), the use of "sorcery" was seen as "quite real" in it's "effect" on society. [Per example, Acts 8:9-11]  (and that was the problem with it) There was an acknowledged "reality" to it, even if the "source" of that reality, was thought to be "demonic" in nature.

"Theologically", nothing was ever "dismissed as non-real", simply because a "chemical" had been used as a "conduit". And here we are NOT talking about "natural chemicals in the brain". We are talking about the worst case scenario of "drug abuse". The same kind of use of a "drug" that was happening with DMT, in Brazil, which allegedly "produce" the reported similarities to NDEs. (Even if it were all true as reported, it still would not simply "eliminate" the experiences as "non-real") "Theologically". [As evidenced in the Scriptures]. Something most "Atheists", would not know. Nor would it mean that what was "seen" was therefore, not "real", prophetically (Per example, the "Delphi Oracle in Greece")

If you think that NDEs have been "solved" by "Brain Chemistry", or "Dismissed" because they are now "explained", you've simply been "misinformed" by someone with an interest and motivation, to do so. Just like when the public was told "life" had been "created" in a "test-tube".

Nor, are "Visions" of "heaven" (theologically) "discarded", simply because they are "visions". Especially when they are accompanied by "Out of body experiences".   The testimony in the Scriptures, is that they were viewed as "real" glimpses, of real placesJust as were the "visions" of "hell" And below is a discussion of just how "real", those "visions" turned out to be. (Now, confirmed by our own modern "Science")