“Curiouser and curiouser!”

Faith & Science Conversation
1
  • Pam Reynolds NDE (1991)
  • " While brain dead, singer and songwriter Pam Reynolds experienced one of the world’s most famous unexplained near-death experiences. Her story challenges a lot of our conventional beliefs about the brain, says pediatric neurosurgeon Dr. Michael Egnor.

In 1991, Pam suffered a life-threatening aneurism at the base of her brain. In order to repair the aneurism, she underwent what is called “standstill”: deep hypothermic circulatory arrest.

Her body was cooled down to 60 degrees Fahrenheit, her heartbeat and breathing stopped and all blood was drained from her head.

This meant that Pam met the standard criteria for clinical death during the operation.

Yet she saw the entire surgery. She describes how she popped out of her body and witnessed the surgery taking place. She recounted details of the operation she could not have known about. She described conversations between doctors and even the music they were playing in the operating room while she was brain dead.

While she was watching the operation, she “saw a tunnel, and she felt herself being pulled down the tunnel. So it was this very pleasant feeling…She saw this beautiful world, and she saw, I think it was her grandparents who had passed away, and her grandparents told her that it wasn’t her time yet, and that she had children to raise, and she had to go back.

So she went back down the tunnel, and she went back into her body when her heart restarted, and she said it was like diving into ice water. She says it was extremely unpleasant, which, yeah, it was 60 degrees. It was very cold,” Dr. Egnor says.

Pam’s experience is the best documented death experience in medical history, says Dr. Egnor. And neuroscientists are at a loss how to explain it."

AI Overview

The primary documentary detailing Pam Reynolds’ famous 1991 near-death experience (NDE) is the BBC (Bristol) 1-hour production titled The Day I Died (2002). The film documents her, “standstill” surgery—where her body was cooled to 15∘C, blood drained, and brain activity ceased—yet she later described, with, remarkable accuracy, surgical tools and conversations.

Key details regarding the Pam Reynolds case and documentaries:

  • The Documentary: The Day I Died features interviews with Reynolds and the neurosurgeon who performed her surgery, Dr. Robert Spetzler.

  • Case Significance: The case is considered one of the most compelling examples of an NDE because her brain was technically inactive (flat EEG), and her eyes/ears were obstructed, yet she reported a vivid, verifiable out-of-body experience

  • Other Appearances: Reynolds’ case is frequently discussed in documentaries about consciousness and the afterlife, including Netflix’s Surviving Death (2021).

  • Alternative Coverage: The 2023 documentary After Death also examines various near-death experiences, though focused on the broader phenomenon.

The case remains a central point of discussion among researchers studying whether consciousness can exist independently of the brain.

4 Likes
2

Per Wiki:

Critics say that the amount of time during which Reynolds was “flatlined” is generally misrepresented and suggest that her NDE occurred under general anaesthesia when the brain was still active, hours before Reynolds underwent hypothermic cardiac arrest.[7][8][9]

Anesthesiologist Gerald Woerlee analyzed the case, and concluded that Reynolds’ ability to perceive events during her surgery was a result of “anesthesia awareness”.[10]

3
  • The funniest comment regarding the posted reel was this:

image
image422×141 11.8 KB

  • While laughing at that, I’d like to point out that the “reel” posted above features Dr. Michael Egnor,

Michael R. Egnor, MD, is Professor of Neurosurgery and Pediatrics at the Renaissance School of Medicine at Stony Brook University. He received his medical degree from the College of Physicians and Surgeons at Columbia University and trained in neurosurgery at the University of Miami. He has been on faculty at Stony Brook since 1991. He is the neurosurgery residency director and has served as the director of pediatric neurosurgery and as vice-chairman of neurosurgery at Stony Brook Medicine. In addition to a full-time neurosurgical practice, he directs a research program on intracranial dynamics, cerebral blood flow and hydrocephalus and has lectured at scientific meetings worldwide and published in leading medical journals including the Journal of Neurosurgery and Cerebrospinal Fluid Research. He has a strong interest in Thomistic philosophy, philosophy of mind, neuroscience, evolution and intelligent design, and bioethics and has published and lectured extensively on these topics. Dr. Egnor was named one of New York’s best doctors by New York Magazine in 2005."

  • Personally, I find Dr. Egnor as interesting, if not more so, than Pam Reynolds whose surgery Dr. Egnor describes in the reel.
  • However, what intrigues me is that he has written a book. Normally, this is where I would link to his book in Amazon. But I’m not going to. Instead, I’m going to link to it here: The Immortal Mind: Neurosurgeon Dr. Michael Egnor on Why We Are More Than Our Brains where he is interviewed by
    Faith in Healthcare host, Dr. Mike Chupp. Dr. Chupp “is joined by Dr. Michael Egnor, a neurosurgeon, professor, and residency program director at Stony Brook University, for an incredible conversation on neuroscience, philosophy, and Christian faith. Drawing from decades of clinical experience and his own journey from atheism and materialism to faith in Christ, Dr. Egnor explores whether the human mind can be fully explained by the brain alone. Sharing real-world evidence from brain surgeries, clinical experiments, neurological cases, and patients’ near-death experiences – and insights from his book The Immortal Mind – this episode challenges reductionist views of consciousness and invites listeners to consider what it truly means to care for patients as whole persons, created with body and soul by our Creator.”
  • Teaser: Dr. Egnor used to be an atheist, heard a voice, and converted to Catholicism.
3 Likes
4

The Immortal Mind: Neurosurgeon Dr. Michael Egnor on Why We Are More Than Our Brains

5

I don’t think that faith can be based on such things. Just as we can’t build a tower into heaven, we shouldn’t expect to find him in our drug or injury induced dreams either.

Perhapse these things exist to point us to him in some way, but they may just as easily point us to the demonic powers who have great power over the world we don’t fully understand.

Take drugs for instance. Drug use was long the domain of litteral witches. (Shamans, druids etc) The Bible says “Suffer not a warlock to live”. It definitely doesn’t say “the visions of witches and the dying declare the glory of God.”

Our faith depends on nothing mystical, only the death and bodily resurrection of Christ. Everything mystical is a playground for deception.

What do we make, for example of those who see Shiva or Mohammad in their NDE. We cannot pick and choose.

While it may seem enticing to point to such things as “evidence” for God, he needs no such evidence.

There is no truth to be gained from a malfunctioning mind. This is human arrogance (like the tower of babble), that there may be some “craft” or “art” or “medical science” that allows us to see the hidden things of God.

To go looking for such things is to invite deception on yourself.

Many may base their faith on these “signs” that decieve “even the elect”… but sadly that faith is a house built on the sand.

1 Like
6
  • You err if you imagine that my faith in the crucified, resurrected, and ascended Jesus of Nazareth depends on stories of NDEs.
2 Likes
7

I don’t presume anything about your faith. I say this as a warning.

I think many people are hungry to “see” God, no different then when Jesus was alive.

“A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah.”

But the irony was that they were looking at God standing right in front of them as Jesus himself.

So it is with us. The heavens declare the glory of God. What need do we have of mystical signs?

1 Like
8

I do not regard NDEs as “signs” to demand from God, nor as substitutes for the resurrection of Christ. At most, they are human experiences that may be examined philosophically. My faith does not stand or fall on them.

2 Likes
9

Good for you I see no issue with that

Philosophically I think that untrue experiences we feel and believe to be true are good evidence for God in a more philosophical way.

That it illustrates the foolishness of believing our senses show us the ground truth of reality and that we can uncover such truth through science.

To do so is like trying to cast doubt on the existence of Leonardo da Vinci by studying only a computer printed image of the mona Lisa.

One could look closely and conclude that the printer ink dot matrix is proof of a mechanical and natural explanation for the image, with no Da Vinci needed!

10

So I have heard of this case years ago, and I haven’t studied it in minute detail, but… assuming her visions took place when there was brain activity (perfectly reasonable assumption!) how can one then explain her claims of “seeing” things that took place when there was no activity?

Yup, same with fortune tellers or Ouija boards

3 Likes
11

When we are thinking about NDE cases, there is a need to separate what is actually observed and how the observations are interpreted. There appear to be some similarities in the experiences around the globe but the interpretations of similar observations may be different, depending on the culture.

We also need to separate observations that can be explained just by the assumed ‘dreams’ of dying brains vs. those that include observations about the external environment during the period when the brains ‘flatline’.

For example, a common experience around the globe seems to be a dark tunnel and light after the tunnel. This kind of observation could be easily interpreted as a ‘dream’ of the brains that suffer from a lack of oxygen.

If the person experiencing a NDE can tell what happened in the surroundings when s/he was ‘flatlined’, that is a more interesting and more difficult case to explain just by what happens in the brains.

There is a need to verify that what the person tells matches with what really happened and that what is described is not something that the body could have easily observed if it was just apparently unconscious.

If there are cases where the ‘flatlined’ person can describe what happened in the surroundings, in that room or even the nearby rooms, those would be cases where the ‘standard’ materialist explanations do not work. Either we would need a novel scientific hypothesis or we need to accept that there is something more than material involved.

I have read of such cases but have not inspected whether the stories were true. I have no good reason to doubt all of the stories - even if some would be fabricated or misinterpreted, some may be real.

6 Likes
13

  • At ‘There is nothing paranormal about near-death experiences’ revisited: comment on Mobbs and Watt

  • "In a recent article in this journal entitled ‘There is nothing paranormal about near-death experiences’, Dean Mobbs and Caroline Watt [1] concluded that ‘[t]aken together, the scientific evidence suggests that all aspects of the near-death experience have a neurophysiological or psychological basis’ (p. 449). We suggest that Mobbs and Watt explained ‘all aspects’ of near-death experiences (NDEs) by ignoring aspects they could not explain and by overlooking a substantial body of empirical research on NDEs. In a subsequent radio interview, Watt acknowledged that they had avoided looking at any evidence for veridical out-of-body perception, resulting in their being unable to evaluate whether or not there was empirical evidence of anything paranormal about NDEs (165. Dr. Caroline Watt Defends, There is Nothing Paranormal About Near-Death Experiences – Skeptiko – Science at the Tipping Point). But if Mobbs and Watt did not consider the evidence for possible paranormal features, then their claim that there is nothing paranormal about NDEs is not evidence-based.

  • Mobbs and Watt attributed out-of-body experiences to REM-intrusion and temporal brain lobe activation. However, near-death experiencers report REM-intrusion phenomena no more often than the general population, and NDEs occur under conditions that in fact inhibit REM [2]. Electrical stimulation of the temporal lobe typically elicits frightening, distorted experiences quite unlike NDEs [3]. Mobbs and Watt attributed movement in NDEs through a tunnel toward a light to narrowing of the visual field from anoxia. However, blood oxygen levels of near-death experiencers have been found to be the same as [4] or in fact greater than those of comparison patients [5].

  • Mobbs and Watt compared visions of deceased persons in NDEs to hallucinations in neurological disorders. However, hallucinations in these neurologic conditions involve only vision and are usually accompanied by fear and confusion, quite unlike realistic, interactive visions of deceased persons in NDEs, which are usually welcoming and often seen, heard, smelled, and touched [6]. Some near-death experiencers report seeing deceased persons of whose death they had no knowledge or sometimes deceased persons they had never met. The accurate information acquired about the deaths of these deceased persons challenges the interpretation of these visions as hallucinations [7].

  • Current neurophysiological models of NDEs fail to explain lucid experiences that occur during cardiac arrest, when conscious experience should be fragmentary or absent. This problem is exacerbated in resuscitated patients who report perceiving events they should not have been able to perceive, yet are later confirmed. Among 107 published cases of such perceptions during NDEs, approximately 91% were completely accurate [8].

  • The near-death literature of the past four decades has moved beyond collection of anecdotes into rigorous scientific investigation. That investigation rightfully has included, and should continue to include, research into neurophysiological correlates of NDEs. However, scholars need to respond to all relevant data, not just data supporting the a priori assumption that NDEs must be reducible to known neurophysiology. In suggesting that there may be some evidence of paranormal features in NDEs, we are not suggesting that those features are supernatural or beyond scientific investigation. They may be paranormal in the sense of being difficult to explain in terms of the currently prevailing reductionistic framework. But we believe that they are entirely lawful and natural phenomena that can and should be studied by scientific methods, rather than dismissed without investigation."

image
image492×346 10.4 KB

5 Likes
14

I am not advocating this position. It just seems to be the place to begin if I wanted to dig into this issue and see how someone skeptical might cross examine it. I suspect a skeptic might try to see what visions took place from where then see how substantial the information is from when there was no brain activity. It’s not impossible for people to hear things and reconstruct what they believe are memories after the. fact. Even that of course doesn’t demonstrate this occurred. A plausible model doesn’t mean something happened that way. Skeptics are often interested in preserving or maintaining (not proving) their status quo (“the a priori assumption that NDEs must be reducible to known neurophysiology”) just as believers are.

Personally, I find miracles to be the weakest form of evidence for God in a discussion. I’d rather just use a cup of coffee on a table. But I suspect on a personal level, they very much could be the strongest reason for individual believers. Gotta go with your experiences, right?

Vinnie

2 Likes
15

This makes no sense to me. How can something untrue be evidence for God, never mind a good evidence? I can’t see how putting “philosophically” in front of a sentence makes it true.

4 Likes
16
  • Personally, I’m open to the possibility that the biblical “raising” narratives, apart from Jesus, describe extraordinary recoveries from apparent death rather than verifiable death in the modern clinical sense. Ancient observers lacked reliable diagnostics, and the texts are theological narratives, not medical reports. Jesus’ resurrection is categorically different in kind and claim.
1 Like
17

If we cannot trust our senses sometimes we must question their limits and not be foolish and think, like many do, that they show us the full truth about our existence.

It is not rational to say “It is better to believe only in what I see.” Would you climb a cliff with a rope that you know often breaks?

Once you accept that, then you start with Berkeley.

1 Like
18

I start every trip from Berkeley :wink: but am no idealist.; Both that position and reductive physicalism are too extreme. I say use and learn how to interpret your senses but also do the same with your intuition. Whatever out natural inclination may be, diversifying our holdings can only help.

19

I am not an idealist either.

We aren’t Gods thoughts, we’re God’s words.

We are created and sustained by the Logos.

Thats what it says literally, in the old testament God spoke and things existed, In the new testament clarifies that God’s Word itself is a person, and that is Jesus, and in him we have our being.

The problem is we imagine everything in terms visual and therefore physical imagery, even “non physical things”. Berkeley calls that out well.

But to suppose God is limited to his own mind as Berkely and Augustine supposed is not right.

You feel that, I think.

There is nothing outside or underlying God, but God entails capacity for both thought and Word. And they are distinct and necessary parts of his being, and we are created in that image.

See my recent post on the Trinity.

20
1 Like
21

Below are separate summaries of each article.

1) Gerald M. Woerlee — “Could Pam Reynolds Hear? A New Investigation into the Possibility of Hearing During this Famous Near-Death Experience” (Journal of Near-Death Studies 30(1), 2011)

Aim / thesis. Woerlee argues that Pam Reynolds’ four “veridical” auditory reports (drill/saw sound, a surgical remark about her vessels, and later “Hotel California”) can be explained without invoking a separable, nonlocal mind: she could have physically heard during periods of anesthesia awareness (i.e., intermittent conscious awareness under anesthesia), with recall shaped by drug effects and surgical context.

Core line of argument (auditory mechanics + anesthesia).

  • Woerlee first challenges the coherence of “disembodied hearing,” contending that if an immaterial consciousness passes through solid matter (as some OBE reports suggest), it would not interact with air-pressure variations that constitute sound—therefore veridical “hearing” implies ordinary auditory pathways.
  • He then addresses the common objection that Reynolds could not have heard because of the loud BAEP click stimuli and ear inserts. Using technical parameters from Barrow publications, he argues the clicks are brief pulses that occupy a small fraction of each second and thus do not continuously “mask” all external sound; they could be ignored as background.
  • He further notes the masking noise level (reported as ~40 dB in related protocols) is well below ordinary speech/music levels, so it would not preclude hearing via air or bone conduction if Reynolds had any awareness.
  • He also argues BAEPs are not an infallible “consciousness detector,” and that clinical anesthesia practice recognizes awareness can occur without obvious outward signs—especially with paralytics on board.

How he maps this onto the “four sounds.”

  • For the later music report, he explicitly ties Reynolds’ reaction (“you can never leave”) to the subjective horror/irony of being paralyzed by vecuronium (no effect on thought, but blocks voluntary movement), while still potentially aware and hearing.
  • He repeatedly points out that Reynolds does not report hearing the BAEP clicking itself, which he takes as consistent with the clicks being ignorable background rather than an all-masking barrage.

Conclusion. Woerlee concludes that Reynolds’ case is “wondrous” but naturally explicable—rooted in human cognition under anesthesia, drug effects, surgical technique, and possibly imperfect monitoring—rather than evidence for mind–brain separation.

2) Keith Augustine — “Does Paranormal Perception Occur in Near-Death Experiences?” (Journal of Near-Death Studies 25(4), 2007)

Aim / thesis. Augustine’s paper (Part I of a broader critique of “survivalist” interpretations) argues that after decades of NDE research, no compelling evidence shows NDErs can obtain information from remote locations via veridical paranormal perception; the best-known “veridical” cases are methodologically weak, explainable by normal processes (especially hearing), or later embellished.

Main argumentative pillars.

  • Corroboration problem & retrospective reconstruction. Augustine emphasizes that most “veridical” claims are reported long after the fact, are hard to verify, and are vulnerable to memory reconstruction, interviewer effects, and social reinforcement.
  • Ordinary sensory channels, especially hearing. Drawing on prior researchers, he argues that accurate details in OBEs can often be sourced from residual hearing (and sometimes touch), with the rest filled in by inference, background knowledge, and selective memory.
  • Incidence arguments. He presses an explanatory challenge: if NDEs are literal afterlife “glimpses,” why are they reported by only a minority of near-death survivors (often cited ~10–20%) and not nearly universally in controlled standstill/hypothermic arrest contexts? He suggests physiological/psychological accounts give a more straightforward answer.

Case critique exemplar: “Maria’s Shoe.”

  • Augustine treats the famous Harborview “shoe on the ledge” story as a paradigmatic allegedly veridical case, then highlights subsequent skeptical investigation arguing the shoe could have been noticed through ordinary means (visible from outside/inside; plausible overhearing; long delay before publication allowing story drift).

Reynolds / anesthesia awareness angle.

  • Augustine explicitly cautions against treating Reynolds’ operating-room auditory recollection as evidence of leaving the body, noting the known phenomenon of anesthesia awareness (often featuring auditory recall), the role of sedatives/paralytics/analgesics, and the plausibility of OBEs being drug-triggered or constructed from heard fragments.

Bottom line. Across the literature and marquee cases, Augustine concludes the evidential base for “unequivocal paranormal perception” in NDEs is overstated and does not meet a compelling standard; normal mechanisms plus methodological contamination suffice in most instances.

3 Likes