Near Death Experiences of Christians and others.

[William]

I have recently being injecting the idea of afterlife from the perspective of people who have experienced OOBEs and NDEs who for the most part are not Christians and share their experiences in the knowledge that they understand the experience as something which they had a part in creating for themselves.

Now I want to shift that from the non-Christian experiences being shared, to those of Christians who have had the same types of experiences and report back the same types of encounters but who don't always report that they understand their experience(s) to be something of their own creation.

It is my understanding that the experiences are both very similar in nature but also unique to the individual. 'Heavens' and 'hells' are also unique to the individual, but encounters with entities are remarkably similar.

THIS WOMAN DIED TWICE, FIRST WENT TO HELL, THEN EXPERIENCED HEAVEN AND MET JESUS

[yt]HvlWYOvtYRo[/yt]

In the channel description is the claim "100% PROOF THAT CHRISTIANITY IS THE TRUTH " which - if Christians were to do serious study on the subject of the Astral Realm from the testimonies of those who say they have experienced this, would come to understand that what it shows is that life doesn't end at the death of the body, and that Christianity is not the only religion which believes such and nor are Christians the only ones who have these experiences.

For that matter, many non religious individuals have experienced this, and while it does indeed change their whole outlook on life, and they adopt a more spiritual outlook, they do not see any necessity in suddenly coming to the conclusion that Christianity is 'The Truth' or that they have to become Christians because of their experiences.

The key points of this particular personal testimony are;

✪ She had her first NDE while in a coma, (2008) in which she ended up in a 'dark place' which she describes as extremely terrifying and refers to as 'hell' and accompanied by a feeling of dread and loss.

✪ Upon awakening from her coma, she recounted her experience to her loved ones gathered around her, and there was verification in relation to what she experienced with what they experienced in regard to a particular time in her experience to which she was aware of to do with the particular event she was speaking about, which coincided with the doctors notifying the family that she was dying and asking the family to gather and say their final goodbyes.

✪ This was then regarded as a miracle that she came through and recovered and due to being told a particular church group had been praying for her, she eventually joined that church and became a 'born again' Christian.

✪ In 2011 she fell sick again and was placed into a coma. She experienced an OOBE and this time it was different. She was floating above her body -looking down at it in the hospital bed. She then experienced a male entity join her and the entity was 'as bright as the sun' only looking at him didn't hurt her eyes.

✪ She experience a profound feeling of pure love from this entity - a love she has never felt from anyone in her whole experience, even from her family or parents... she describes the love was for her and was so strong and powerful and she just knew this entity loved her and this also gave her a feeling of being totally safe and protected and at peace.

✪ She says that there was telepathic communication between her and the entity but that she cannot remember what was said to her and she believes that the entity was Jesus himself.

✪ She comments that she is aware of other testimonies from others who have experienced similar encounters with this alternate reality. She also says she believes that she experienced 'a section of hell' rather then 'the whole of hell'. She says the same in regard to her second experience - that she was 'in a part of heaven' but did not see 'all of heaven'.

✪ She ends her testimony stating that 'we don't just die but go somewhere else and that hell is real, heaven is real and Jesus is real.

Now obviously she makes certain assumptions which are connected to her beliefs and these should be taken in that context. Her parting comments generally show what motivates a lot of Christians in relation to their beliefs.

Point being, as anyone can see through a bit of investigating into such stories will begin to see clearly that there is more than meets the eye as the pieces all fit together, re all such stories of such type experiences. Stories which not only are not going to go away or be so easily ignored/swept under the carpet - but will continue to grow in number as more people having them, share them with the world.



Questions for those who are Judaist, Christian or Muslim, are;

1: To what degree do you believe that these experiences are indicative of truth and need to regarded as genuine?

2: In relation to other faiths, where people encounter similar experiences, how does that stand in relation to your own faith in your own particular beliefs re the group/denomination you invest in?

3: In relation to those who are of no particular faith and have similar - life changing experiences, (these ones often become more spiritual but not necessarily develop religious beliefs) how does that stand in relation to your own faith in your own particular beliefs re the group/denomination you invest in?

Thanks.

[William]

Religious dogma is designed to marginalize NDEs by invoking 'the devil and demons' (just as JW did in the early post of this thread.)

[yt]HbT7Y3kXCEM[/yt]

Ray suffered a schoolyard accident which precipitated a near death experience.

In the video Ray explains as best as possible, what he experienced and it is yet another example of Panentheist theology, where GOD is not separate from us, but we are aspects of GOD.

After his recovery, Ray spoke of his experience to his mother - a devote catholic, who in turn thought it best that Ray see a priest. The priest told Ray that since Jesus was not a part of his NDE, what Ray had experience was 'a trick of the devil' - echos of what JW was saying, and many other Christians from other sects claim.


From the time the priest told this to Ray, until in his early 20s, Ray 'put the memory of his experience on the shelf'. It was not until he happened upon another NDE story so closely resembling his own, that it all came flooding back to him.

One argument from the 'consciousness is emergent of the brain' crowd is that NDEs are merely 'feedback loops in the brains neural network' but this in itself does not account for people having clear understandable linear interactive intelligent experiences. One would expect the 'feedback loops' to be disorganized, random, meaningless, unstructured etc et al.

[William]

[Replying to post 15 by JehovahsWitness]

I don't mean to be insulting but have you actually read the full account? Are you aware that Peter was instructed to leave the prison by an angel? If we take it that angels are God's messengers, would that not mean that Peter left the Prison upon God's instruction?

This is the type of double-standard hypocritical thinking I have been speaking to in arguing with Christian beliefs that differentiate anything they consider to be in opposition with their beliefs as 'of the devil' while at the same time declaring when it suits, that 'Angels are God's messengers' as it conveniently suits them.

In this manner they can and do declare that 'the devil can appear as an angel of light' unless of course that 'angel of light' is involved with something they personally believe cannot be anything but GOD...for no other reason than it supports their particular version of 'what is truth'.

[blackstart]

In response to the opening post, this may be of interest:


A person who has experienced a genuine NDE(e.g. whilst having a a cardiac arrest) has almost certainly gone through three main stages
1) Consciousness in the moments before the brain activity flatlines
2) The period when brain activity flatlines
3) Consciousness in the moments following No 2

This whole event is a process, and there is no evidence that NDEs are even or only a phenomenon related to No 2.

For me, I would require substantive evidence in the following areas:

1) There would have to be convincing evidence that either a)the brain plays no part in the whole NDE experience or b) the brain is simply the receiver of the NDE experiences.
2) It could be demonstrated exactly where, when and how the 'afterlife' world communicates with the physical body.
3) Experimental evidence would be produced which demonstrates such communication, and which is capable of falsification.
4) There would have to be objective, clear and convincing evidence of identical NDE experiences as the norm.

In response to these:

I have seen no evidence whatsoever that confirms No 1.

I have seen no evidence whatsoever that confirms no 2.

Any attempts at no 3 have so far produced negative or inconclusive results.

As for no 4, There is a large body of evidence which clearly suggests that such experiences are not at all identical. Even general traits, such as out of body experiences or feelings of peace, seem to be dependent on cultural influences. Out of 11 non western studies, involving 7 countries, only China and Japan seemed to show feelings of peace during an NDE. OBEs were absent from studies in Zambia and the Congo,

As far as veridical NDE research goes, two areas have dominated.

1) The retrospective, which depends on the quality and accuracy of the data revealed in a subsequent investigation of the near death episode. This is, by its very nature, anecdotal. Unfortunately many instances are open to wide interpretation and even the best of these instances are hotly debated on both sides of this debate(e.g. Pam Reynolds, Maria's shoe). Unfortunately anecdotal evidence does not sit well with scientific method.

2) The prospective field study. There have been at least six such studies where perceptual targets have been used(mainly visual). Unfortunately, so far, these studies have been disappointing. No researcher has produced anything but negative results, including the latest extensive Aware study.

I think that it is interesting that in an exchange of emails with Bruce Greyson in 2006, NDE researcher, Professor Kenneth Ring said this:

There is so much anecdotal evidence that suggests(experiencers) can. at least sometime, perceive veridically during their NDEs ....but isn't it true that in all this time, there hasn't been a single case of a veridical perception reported by an NDEr under controlled conditions? I mean, thirty years later, it's still a null class(as far as I know). Yes, excuses, excuses-I know. But, really, wouldn't you have suspected more than a few cases at least by now??..

[marco]

I think that it is interesting that in an exchange of emails with Bruce Greyson in 2006, NDE researcher, Professor Kenneth Ring said this:

There is so much anecdotal evidence that suggests(experiencers) can. at least sometime, perceive veridically during their NDEs ....but isn't it true that in all this time, there hasn't been a single case of a veridical perception reported by an NDEr under controlled conditions? I mean, thirty years later, it's still a null class(as far as I know). Yes, excuses, excuses-I know. But, really, wouldn't you have suspected more than a few cases at least by now??..

Yes, in normal circumctances, one would expect a few cases that were subject to verification. Of course we don't have normal circumstances and it might well be that the isolation of the individual is a contributory factor in the experience. External intrusion might impede the event.

[William]

[Replying to post 63 by blackstart]

A person who has experienced a genuine NDE(e.g. whilst having a a cardiac arrest) has almost certainly gone through three main stages
1) Consciousness in the moments before the brain activity flatlines
2) The period when brain activity flatlines
3) Consciousness in the moments following No 2

This whole event is a process, and there is no evidence that NDEs are even or only a phenomenon related to No 2.

It is not known or normally claimed that everyone who suffers near death, has a NDE. NDEs are considered to be when the individual has an alternate experience and consciously interacts with that, and - of course - reports on the experience as best they are able.

For me, I would require substantive evidence in the following areas:

1) There would have to be convincing evidence that either a)the brain plays no part in the whole NDE experience or b) the brain is simply the receiver of the NDE experiences.
2) It could be demonstrated exactly where, when and how the 'afterlife' world communicates with the physical body.
3) Experimental evidence would be produced which demonstrates such communication, and which is capable of falsification.
4) There would have to be objective, clear and convincing evidence of identical NDE experiences as the norm.

1 and 2 are not required in genuine NDEs. The experiences themselves convince the one having the experience that what they are experiencing is real and consequently life-changing.

3 and 4 are problematic. Those doing serious study on this phenomena have not been able to figure out how to set up such experiments to facilitate such demonstration.

In response to these:

I have seen no evidence whatsoever that confirms No 1.

I have seen no evidence whatsoever that confirms no 2.

One would have to have a genuine NDE in order for this to be the case.

Any attempts at no 3 have so far produced negative or inconclusive results.

In what you state, it appears that there have been efforts of experiment created for the purpose of demonstration?

As for no 4, There is a large body of evidence which clearly suggests that such experiences are not at all identical. Even general traits, such as out of body experiences or feelings of peace, seem to be dependent on cultural influences. Out of 11 non western studies, involving 7 countries, only China and Japan seemed to show feelings of peace during an NDE. OBEs were absent from studies in Zambia and the Congo,

Not sure how you are quantifying 'feelings of peace' in relation to NDEs. Certainly the majority of people studied generally report being at peace with themselves and more harmonious with life in general, often with all 'fear of death' removed as a fixture of their psyche.

As far as veridical NDE research goes, two areas have dominated.

1) The retrospective, which depends on the quality and accuracy of the data revealed in a subsequent investigation of the near death episode. This is, by its very nature, anecdotal. Unfortunately many instances are open to wide interpretation and even the best of these instances are hotly debated on both sides of this debate(e.g. Pam Reynolds, Maria's shoe). Unfortunately anecdotal evidence does not sit well with scientific method.

Presently there is no a lot of room for the placement of scientific method, largely due to that.

2) The prospective field study. There have been at least six such studies where perceptual targets have been used(mainly visual). Unfortunately, so far, these studies have been disappointing. No researcher has produced anything but negative results, including the latest extensive Aware study.

Perhaps the major problem therein is that something so obviously alternate which can be experienced as reality, is conflated with what we do know and experience as real, and thus the approach to this - while understandable enough - is pointless as a device for scientific referencing.

There are overlaps which have been reported in large enough volume to make a person who hasn't experienced such, wonder...but not enough that the sound of normal reality doesn't eventually drown the wonder out - life goes on as the saying goes.

If you haven't already, read post#20 in this thread as it covers a lot of what you have brought up.

[William]

[Replying to post 64 by marco]

Yes, in normal circumctances, one would expect a few cases that were subject to verification. Of course we don't have normal circumstances and it might well be that the isolation of the individual is a contributory factor in the experience. External intrusion might impede the event.

Like the Double Slit Experiments?

[blackstart]

[Replying to post 65 by William]


Just a few responses to your various points:

1) I haven't claimed that everyone who is near death has a NDE. Obviously they don't. I'm not sure why you mentioned this.

2) I have no problem with the idea that NDEs are a feature of brain activity, or that the person who has had the NDE considers it real. My points 1 and 2 are simply suggesting that I see no evidence that an NDE relates to any sort of afterlife.

3)Experiments have been set up(the latest was done by Dr Sam Parnia in the Aware Study), all, as far as I know, producing negative results.

4)If I had had an NDE then I suggest that this would only count as personal anecdote. It wouldn't count as evidence other than that I had had an NDE experience.

5)There have been several studies involving targets of a totally blind design to test the veracity of OBEs. E.g. P. Sartori 2004 Morriston Hospital, Swansea, Wales.

6) As you say, the majority of Western NDEs seem harmonious, but there is evidence to suggest that perhaps a mid to high teens percentage of Western NDEs have been found to be distressing.

[William]

[Replying to post 67 by blackstart]

2) I have no problem with the idea that NDEs are a feature of brain activity, or that the person who has had the NDE considers it real. My points 1 and 2 are simply suggesting that I see no evidence that an NDE relates to any sort of afterlife.

As far as I am aware, there are no NDEs which relate to anything other than experience of - what is generically referred to as 'afterlife', as far as the majority of those who have then are concerned. 'Afterlife' is simply seen as a continuation of conscious experience. Where that takes place is considered real experience. Consciousness is the only attribute which is able to say what is real.

You do not say why you have no problem with the idea that NDEs are a feature of brain activity, so there is presently no opening for any discussion re that, between us.

4)If I had had an NDE then I suggest that this would only count as personal anecdote. It wouldn't count as evidence other than that I had had an NDE experience.

Wouldn't the content of the experience also count? Do you consider your own personal experience of being human, on a planet, in a galaxy in this universe - as 'anecdote'?

My own experiences with OOBE have given me personal insight and while certainly different from my dominant reality experience as a human being, on a planet, in a galaxy in this universe, the reality of the experience is no different in that both are experienced as being real. Real, as opposed to simply imagined.

Indeed, if the argument is 'the brain did it' (as per imagined) then one can also claim that the experience one is having as a human being on a planet, in a galaxy in this universe is also a product of brain imagination. Certainly this is the focus of the naturalist argument when examined in detail. Essentially the individual is being imagined into an existence which itself is called 'real' but they are not themselves real in relation to that. Rather they are a construct of something which is real, and relative to that, are merely a blip on the face of that reality.

OOBEs and NDEs certainly dump that notion, as far as the majority of those who genuinely have them are concerned.

[blackstart]

[Replying to post 68 by William]

As far as I am aware, there are no NDEs which relate to anything other than experience of - what is generically referred to as 'afterlife', as far as the majority of those who have then are concerned.

The crucial words here are 'as far as the majority of those who have them are concerned'. I don't doubt that, but that does not necessarily make their experiences true in any objective sense. I could, for instance, have some sort of transcendent experience associated with god. This would not be evidence that this god actually exists.

Afterlife' is simply seen as a continuation of conscious experience. Where that takes place is considered real experience. Consciousness is the only attribute which is able to say what is real.

Where that takes place is crucial. Neuroscience suggests that it is probably an emengent product of the brain. Although we have much to learn about what consciousness is, there is no evidence that consciousness can continue to exist without the brain. Consciousness can only say what is real according to how evolution has made us, and that includes responses to the world around us according to our senses. Hence, if our senses are only giving us part information or misleading information, then it is entirely possible that consciousness can make wrong assumptions about the natural world.

You do not say why you have no problem with the idea that NDEs are a feature of brain activity, so there is presently no opening for any discussion re that, between us.

I have no problem with the idea that NDEs are a feature of brain activity because that seem to be the most logical explanation. Indeed, similar experiences have been recounted by using mind altering drugs. If they are not a product of the mind, then I would be interested in seeing the evidence that suggests that they are a product of something else.

Wouldn't the content of the experience also count? Do you consider your own personal experience of being human, on a planet, in a galaxy in this universe - as 'anecdote'?

Why do you lump all experiences under one umbrella? Most of my experiences involve feedback that suggests that certain things exist. If I hit my thumb with a hammer, then my experience tells me that the hammer probably exists. If I am having a conversation with another person, then my experience tell me that the other person probably exists. The alternative is solipsism.
However there are certain heightened states of mind which one can experience, which can seem very real but are not necessarily real for anyone else(e.g. having a transcendent experience, having an NDE) If I were to express these type of experiences to others as indicating some sort of 'truth' then surely I would be duty bound to give evidence which could confirm this.

My own experiences with OOBE have given me personal insight and while certainly different from my dominant reality experience as a human being, on a planet, in a galaxy in this universe, the reality of the experience is no different in that both are experienced as being real. Real, as opposed to simply imagined.

I don't doubt it, but there is no reason for me to accept that such experiences point towards some sort of alternative reality unless testable, falsifiable evidence is forthcoming.

Indeed, if the argument is 'the brain did it' (as per imagined) then one can also claim that the experience one is having as a human being on a planet, in a galaxy in this universe is also a product of brain imagination. Certainly this is the focus of the naturalist argument when examined in detail. Essentially the individual is being imagined into an existence which itself is called 'real' but they are not themselves real in relation to that. Rather they are a construct of something which is real, and relative to that, are merely a blip on the face of that reality.

Our best test for describing reality is surely the scientific method in that it at least attempts to be as objective(intersubjective) as possible, and all its descriptions are provisional, accepting that as new evidence comes along, they may have to be modified or rejected. In all this it presupposes the natural world we live in. There is no doubt that people can experience NDEs, but if they are to be given a non-natural(loosely a 'spiritual') explanation then some sort of methodology has to be used which can confirm this. Indeed some sort of methodology has to be produced which can ascertain that such a thing as the spiritual world actually exists. I am certainly open to such a methodology, but have never seen one which implies objectivity rather than subjectivity.

OOBEs and NDEs certainly dump that notion, as far as the majority of those who genuinely have them are concerned.

I'm sure they do. However, this is no more evidence for NDEs being anything but brain activity than those who have had a god experience proving the actual existence of their particular god.

Cheers

[William]

[Replying to post 69 by blackstart]

The crucial words here are 'as far as the majority of those who have them are concerned'. I don't doubt that, but that does not necessarily make their experiences true in any objective sense.

I doubt you will find one post in this thread which claims otherwise, and certainly that doesn't present any problem for those who have experienced NDEs or OOBEs
The experiences are true in the subjective sense. Proving them objectively isn't something they generally are concerned about

I could, for instance, have some sort of transcendent experience associated with god. This would not be evidence that this god actually exists.

It would at least be evidence that the being exists according to your experience of it. That is the point re the power of real experience and experiencing something real. The experiences are reported as real, by those who have actually had the experiences. They understand the difference between real and imagined.

Now if your argument was that if you had a transcendent experience whereby a being claimed to be your creator and GOD, this would not actually be evidence that the being was speaking the truth,

As with the testimony of the girl in the OP blurb, encounters with beings are often described in a similar manner, but are also defined according to the individuals belief systems or things they might not have believed but have heard about and so interpret such experience in association with those beliefs. Generally there appears to often be anomalies which help them to question their beliefs as well, depending on what the beliefs are.

From the OP;

✪ She experienced a profound feeling of pure love from this entity - a love she has never felt from anyone in her whole experience, even from her family or parents... she describes the love was for her and was so strong and powerful and she just knew this entity loved her and this also gave her a feeling of being totally safe and protected and at peace.

and;

✪ She says that there was telepathic communication between her and the entity but that she cannot remember what was said to her and she believes that the entity was Jesus himself.

Very often such transcendent experiences reported includes encounters with a loving being, who is often enough understood to being Jesus by those who have been exposed to predominant Western theology.

My first OOBE (mentioned in post #40) involved an encounter with an entity who said nothing to me but still managed to convey an undeniable impression within me (throughout my psyche) that it knew me far better than I knew myself, and loved me unconditionally and I had no doubt whatsoever that this was the truth. I just knew it with certainty, which - even to this day - I have never known anything with such certainty.

There were no claims coming from this entity as to who it was in relation to me, and I was left with my assumptions regarding that.

Indeed, the experience left me with a number of problems to sort in relation to my learned presumptions and beliefs, prior to having it. I was in my early 20s when it happened and am now almost 56. It has taken a good chunk of that time for me to figure those problems out adequately, not to say that it was a preoccupation, but certainly a priority.

Afterlife' is simply seen as a continuation of conscious experience. Where that takes place is considered real experience. Consciousness is the only attribute which is able to say what is real.

Where that takes place is crucial.

Crucial to what?

Neuroscience suggests that it is probably an emengent product of the brain.

An understandable belief. When Neuroscience is able to be used to replicate my experiences, I will also become a believer. Meantime I have many reasonable concerns as to the validity of such belief.

Although we have much to learn about what consciousness is, there is no evidence that consciousness can continue to exist without the brain.

Actually there is any amount of the type of evidence which people who have the experiences accept in relation to that. Very few - if any - decide to conclude that 'the brain manufactures the experiences'. What can only be called anecdotal from a scientists point of view is because the scientific process can only deal with the physical not the metaphysical and in that can only accept evidence which is physical.

Metaphysics have created clear enough 'maps' related to the 'place' consciousness continues to exist once the human brain/body dies. There is no question consciousness can continue to exist without the brain.

My personal understanding presently is that consciousness continues to exist within the mind of the planet Earth Entity - the 'local GOD' as I oft refer to 'her'. But that is another aspect of the subject which likely explains the existence of what is altogether oft referred to as "The Astral Realm".

Consciousness can only say what is real according to how evolution has made us, and that includes responses to the world around us according to our senses. Hence, if our senses are only giving us part information or misleading information, then it is entirely possible that consciousness can make wrong assumptions about the natural world.

I matters not what is experienced as real, be it this universe, an alternate universe, or even a morph of two universes, the point is that no universe can be experienced as existing, without consciousness, because consciousness determines this in all cases.

As to human senses, we already know that the information consciousness receives in that manner is only partial and just for that is misleading and that has a bearing on what we do experience as real, and all new information of experience allows for adjustment in relation to understanding what is being experienced and how it is being experienced.

The physical universe - specifically the earth - is the dominant reality experience we are engaged with, but is by no means the only reality we are able to experience. In that, all alternate experience need not be deemed 'unreal'. It is a real aspect of the dominant experience.

Subjectively the one experiencing decides and for the most part, those who have experienced NDEs/OOBEs never decide that their experience was not REAL. That it is a subjective experience makes no difference as to whether it was experienced as real. All experience is subjective, because consciousness only experiences subjectively.
As individuals We can and do agree to objects which are subjectively experienced, and this is the same with individuals interacting in alternate experiences.

I have no problem with the idea that NDEs are a feature of brain activity because that seem to be the most logical explanation.

I have yet to be shown any information which shows logically, experiences which are claimed to have happened, logically shouldn't happen - shouldn't be able to be experienced.

This is especially true when claiming that the brain is that which is giving the experience. To suggest that it is responsible for the complex unworldly experiences of NDEs/OOBEs, is to have to give the brain two separate consciousnesses, in order for it to achieve this.

1: that which is claimed to be generated by the brain as 'consciousness', which effectively is what 'we' are.

and;

2: A separate consciousness from what 'we' are which develops the elaborate 'hallucinations' which can be experienced by the 'we' consciousness in order to 'trick' us that we are 'real' and the alternate experiences are also 'real'.

As I mentioned in my last post, in order for this to be the case, many things become problematic.

Essentially, there becomes little difference in that argument, than with the argument the Christians use to 'explain' why these experience happen, which is 'deceptive demons are doing it'.
To those who have genuinely experienced alternate reality, both claims fall short of the actual experience had - and frankly - come across as bizarre, desperate and ill-informed.

Indeed, similar experiences have been recounted by using mind altering drugs. If they are not a product of the mind, then I would be interested in seeing the evidence that suggests that they are a product of something else.

Many individuals who use plant material for such experiences still do not understand that the chemicals in the plant material are what cause the experiences but rather - that these help to remove the inhibitors which are in place, in order that the experiences can be had.

Why do you lump all experiences under one umbrella?

Because there is no obvious requirement not to do so. Indeed, as I explained, it is consciousness which has the experience, and consciousness is the common denominator, so there is no need for the individual to have many 'umbrellas' or many consciousnesses.

Most of my experiences involve feedback that suggests that certain things exist. If I hit my thumb with a hammer, then my experience tells me that the hammer probably exists. If I am having a conversation with another person, then my experience tell me that the other person probably exists. The alternative is solipsism.

Why go off on that tangent? I have not argued that this [dominant reality] experience is not real. I am arguing that alternate experience are no less real and in some cases are reported to be even more real, due, I suspect, to there being less inhibitors.

As to solipsism, in relation to the idea that there is really only ONE consciousness having infinite differing experience through infinite variety of form, then yes - essentially solipsism, but no - in terms of the individuate consciousness having only one specific experience as the individual, solipsism is not applicable.

However there are certain heightened states of mind which one can experience, which can seem very real but are not necessarily real for anyone else(e.g. having a transcendent experience, having an NDE) If I were to express these type of experiences to others as indicating some sort of 'truth' then surely I would be duty bound to give evidence which could confirm this.

That is a fallacy, and one which also influences individual decisions to even speak about their real experience as being 'real' if they even speak of it at all.
But no, there is no natural rule-set which says that I must keep my experience occulted simply because others might decide I am 'mentally ill', 'in need of medication', spurn and mock, etc...

The evidence such as it is - comes in the form of the shared anecdotes. From the perspective of those who have experienced alternate realities such anecdotes are believable, because they are known to be possible.

Such evidence is not acceptable to those others who have had no direct experience with alternate realities and have formed their own opinions as to 'why' such experiences happen, and the fallacy of demanding empirical evidence to confirm an experience someone else claims to have had when it is obvious all that is available is anecdotal, and thus cannot be regarded as evidence, is as pointless as it is, senseless.

The best advise I can offer those who demand such evidence is that they learn how to OOBE and find out for themselves first-hand at least, and then they will have something to go on and work with.

As far as these being 'some sort of truth' as you put it, there is obviously a connection between these types of experiences as being natural enough products of the human experience.

Ample evidence to support that such experiences have been had by humans for as long as humans have been around, explain adequately the reason ideas of GOD and religion and concepts of alternate realities (heavens and hells etc), evolved in line with human biological evolution and understanding, can and have been misconstrued and used against the vulnerable/gullible for untoward/political purposes, feared and demonized, or consigned to being a product of mental problems/brain malfunctions.

The truth of the matter is that such experiences are a natural part of the overall human experience and are not going to go away or be explained away or drugged away, or cut away, mocked away, etc et al.

I don't doubt it, but there is no reason for me to accept that such experiences point towards some sort of alternative reality unless testable, falsifiable evidence is forthcoming.

What gives you the impression I am, or need be concerned about that, or that this is what this thread topic and the OP are about?

How should it matter to me what you choose to believe about my experiences? Why should I not share them just because I cannot provide you any evidence that they happened and were real? How is that even relevant?

Millions of people have and/or are experiencing this alternate reality and sharing what they encounter through this active exploration of the mind. In that, they corroborate the data and understand that 'the mind' is not how those who interpret science understand it, or can possibly hope to understand it.

I doubt that you can even give one example of what you might regard as scientific evidence which could support the existence of this alternate reality, even that you believe you have the right to demand it of others.

Our best test for describing reality is surely the scientific method in that it at least attempts to be as objective(intersubjective) as possible, and all its descriptions are provisional, accepting that as new evidence comes along, they may have to be modified or rejected. In all this it presupposes the natural world we live in.

This works in relation to experiencing this reality, yes. In as much as it solves problems and uncovers more mysteries in the process of discovery...

There is no doubt that people can experience NDEs, but if they are to be given a non-natural(loosely a 'spiritual') explanation then some sort of methodology has to be used which can confirm this.

The assumption the experiences are 'unnatural' are best placed to one side for a start. The whole reason spiritual concepts exist are because of the natural connect involved with experiencing the alternate reality. It is called 'spirit' because it is alternate interactive. Consciousness is the binding factor...the actual spirit interactive.

So far the best methodology scientists have been able to develop related to NDEs specifically, are exampled in post#20 Watch the video embedded in that post.

These studies have been going on for over 50 years already, and while the data has been useful, there is little else scientific method can achieve. Personal experience of course can and does convince the individual, but is still only useful as anecdote. I would assume most scientists involved in the study would have been able to develop some type of machinery which could allow for some type of measurement etc which you are eluding to, but for now, such has not been invented.

Indeed some sort of methodology has to be produced which can ascertain that such a thing as the spiritual world actually exists. I am certainly open to such a methodology, but have never seen one which implies objectivity rather than subjectivity.

Nonetheless, these experiences continue to happen, unhindered by present day scientific processes inability to develop anything. Generally among that community, the idea has been to take the position that it is 'all in the brain' and deal with it from that perspective.

As post#20 shows, that explanation is problematic with some of the evidence collected, specific to;

1: The period when brain activity flatlines
2: The individual continues having experience in an alternate reality following 1:

I'm sure they do. However, this is no more evidence for NDEs being anything but brain activity than those who have had a god experience proving the actual existence of their particular god.

There are certainly many who do change significantly after experiencing such. Some become religious, some spiritualist, all less fearful and generally develop more positive outlooks and deeper understanding about human life, become more tolerant and less judgmental, and some - like myself - understand 'GOD' not to be any specific individuate entity (such as Jesus or Yahweh) but as the 'glue' that holds everything together...so to speak...simply the non-absent overall consciousness pervading all that is, whatever reality is being experienced by whoever.

As to 'the brain did it', I am satisfied my previous answer plus my expanding on that idea in this post, covers your concerns adequately. The brain is not GOD, and is not conscious. It is simply a tool for a specific purpose which consciousness and the mind utilize.