Michael Egnor and I have been working on a book on how near-death experiences — which are often life-changing — became a topic in medical science, with studies, journal articles, and such devoted to them.
One change I have noticed recently is that science writers seem a bit more careful with the topic than they used to be. It’s getting harder all the time to write it all off as nonsense or fraud — without obvious contradictions staring us in the face.
Consider a recent item at the BBC’s Science Focus by staff science writer Alex Hughes. He interviewed psychologist Chris French of Goldsmiths University in London.
French is described as “focusing upon non-paranormal explanations for ostensibly paranormal experiences” — in other words, he is a debunker.
Hughes begins by asking “So what exactly causes near-death experiences? Are they visions from god? An actual glimpse of the afterlife? Unsurprisingly, science can’t say for sure.”
“Unsurprisingly”?
I distinctly remember a time when many felt that science could say for sure. Dozens of models have been put forward over the years to explain away near-death experiences. As Egnor and I pointed out in The Immortal Mind: A Neurosurgeon’s Case for the Existence of the Soul (2025), these models don’t work.
That said, Hughes tells us, French and other researchers have another interesting new theory:
“Most neuropsychologists think they’re visions of a dying brain. There’s weird stuff happening in your brain usually in these circumstances, and this is how you experience it,” said French.
“It feels incredibly real and we don’t have a definitive answer to explain it but this is definitely the most logical answer we have.”
Alex Hughes, “This is what a near-death experience actually feels like,” BBC Science Focus, April 16, 2026
The New Theory Has a Name
The name is “disturbed bodily multisensory integration” — In other words, an enhanced experience caused by multiple sensory stimuli firing at the same time due to an extreme bodily experience.”
And the outcome?
… as mentioned above, for most people an NDE has surprisingly positive effects on the rest of their life. Near-death experiences are linked to an increase in morality, happiness, fulfilment in life, and even for some a tightening in their trust in their religion.
Unsurprisingly, having believed they have seen the afterlife or experienced different dimensions, many people who experience an NDE are far more spiritual afterwards, with a focus on reincarnation, the afterlife, and projection of the mind.
One very common link among people who have experienced these visions is an increase in altruism and a decrease in interest in material goods. This also included a lessening in desire to earn and keep money.
Alex Hughes, “This is what a near-death experience actually feels like,” BBC Science Focus, April 16, 2026
So we are asked to believe that the mere firing of multiple sensory stimuli during a close brush with death leads to a dramatic, long-term transformation in the direction of morality, happiness, etc., and caring more about others. Why is this the “most logical answer” we have?
It Depends on the Purpose of the Theory
We get a clue from a book that French and Anna Stone authored, Anomalistic Psychology: Exploring Paranormal Belief and Experience (2013). From the advance praise: “Lots of people believe they have had strange experiences, such as alien abduction or seeing heaven when near death. French and Stone, in this meticulously researched and beautifully written book, help us understand why.”
In short, French’s theory is the most logical answer if we start with the assumption that the mind is simply what the brain does. And that the purpose of studying NDEs is to conform them to that pattern, even if they don’t fit.
It actually does not matter very much whether the explanation accounts for the evidence. This one doesn’t. What matters is that it is materialistically plausible and sounds scientific. It is competing with dozens of similar accepted explanations that don’t explain. But they do pass the same test: they sound scientific.
We find the same scenario with explanations of human consciousness. Robert Lawrence Kuhn wrote a paper recently on the landscape of consciousness theories. He noted that “overwhelmingly for scientists, materialism is the prevailing theory of consciousness.” One theory replaces another seamlessly in the academic and popular science literature because none of them actually explains very much. But that doesn’t matter because, like the theories about NDEs, they are simply restatements of materialism as applied to one specific topic.
It’s Time to Change This Picture
As the authors of the AWARE trials of NDEs say,
The study authors conclude that although studies to date have not been able to absolutely prove the reality or meaning of patients’ experiences and claims of awareness in relation to death, it has been impossible to disclaim them either. They say recalled experience surrounding death now merits further genuine empirical investigation without prejudice.
What’s changing so far — and I will have more to say about this in upcoming articles — is a new diffidence, a willingness to cautiously admit that “we do not have a definitive answer” to questions like what causes NDEs (or consciousness). In other words, a definitive answer is not just around the corner. What’s around the corner is another freshly minted materialist theory. Perhaps that is partly why even the producers and purveyors of such theories are beginning to sound less certain, as we shall see.