Esquire's ace in the hole

Here's an excellent article by Robert Mays on Esquire's recent debunking of Eben Alexander's bestselling book Proof of Heaven. (Thanks to commenter MitiL for providing me with the link.)

The article speaks for itself, and I urge you to read it. It covers the major allegations made against Alexander, including the claims that he was not in a real coma, that his condition was not as serious as he made it out to be, that the Dalai Lama impugned his credibility, and that he has a history of malpractice suits.

Mays even takes the trouble to refute more trivial claims, such as the contention that Alexander's family members could not have seen a rainbow on the day when he emerged from his coma. 

He shows that the Dalai Lama's comments were grossly misrepresented; that the coma was indeed real and that Alexander accurately described his condition; and that having performed more than 4,000 surgeries, Alexander has faced a few suits (as I presume most surgeons have in our litigious society), but without any evident misconduct on his part. 

Some of these mischaracterizations can be chalked up to simple incompetence; possibly the Esquire reporter didn't bother to read the appendix to Alexander's book, which consisted of a doctor's testimony on Alexander's medical condition; and possibly the reporter missed the passages in the body of the book where Alexander himself mentioned that, even while in a coma, he was occasionally sedated to inhibit the muscle spasms racking his body (a fact that apparently led Esquire to label the coma "medically induced"). 

Other errors are less easy to understand. The Dalai Lama's comments are available in full on video, and though his English is imperfect, his meaning is more than clear. Moreover, as Mays points out, Alexander was the Dalai Lama's invited guest, and it would hardly make sense to invite Alexander to an event in order to publicly humiliate him. 

With regard to the malpractice issue, I think No One summed it up well in a comment on the previous thread:

Most surgeons will experience malpractice suits of the course of a 25 year career. Things go wrong during surgery because surgery is risky and patients/surviving family get upset and look to blame and/or smell the opportunity to make a quick buck. Most plaintiff's attorneys will allege tampering with medical records. Dittrich [the Esquire writer] neglects to mentions this fact or to demonstrate that Alexander is outside the norm in this regard. He is hoping that the reader is ignorant of the facts of the context and will be swayed by the seemingly appalling "facts" he presents.

What is the motivation behind such an article? I'm only guessing, but I'd suggest that the good people at Esquire simply could not believe that Alexander's story was legitimate. It was too cornball, too hokey, too feel-good to be real. Besides, it wasn't scientific - i.e., it didn't fit the narrative favored by the smart set: that human beings are insignificant accidents in a meaningless cosmos. They already knew the story had to be false, so anything that seemed to falsify it had to be true. 

There's a blurry line between cynicism and malice, a line brilliantly explored in Billy Wilder's great film Ace in the Hole, which just happens to concern an unprincipled journalist who destroys people's lives in pursuit of a byline. A case can be made that Esquire crossed that line. We can hope the magazine will issue a retraction and apology - but I wouldn't count on it.

Comments

[Smithy]

Michael, I don't count on an retraction and apology either. My experience with (psuedo-)skeptics is that they never ever bow for new evidence that refutes their claims. At worst, they will come up with other damaging but untrue claims, at best they will remain silent about it.

If I may say so, and if people on this forum are familiar with the Doctor Who science fiction series, many skeptics behave as those horrible Daleks, whose only reason for their existence is: (to) EXTERMINATE! everything that looks like the paranormal, spiritual beliefs, and so on.

Alternatively, one can also call them the "taliban of science"

[MitiL]

Great thanks, Michael!

[Arouet]

Hi Michael,

With regard to the misconduct, while he was not banned from practicing it is not correct that no misconduct was found on his part. Here is the finding from the Virginia Board of Medicine:

Alexander, III, Eben, MD 0101-239440
Lynchburg, VA
03/23/09 Reprimand, $3500 monetary penalty, based on two patient cases of performing surgery on the wrong surgical site; and
in one of the cases, failure to disclose same to the patient, and altering the original operative report to obscure the fact of the wrong site surgery.

http://www.dhp.virginia.gov/medicine/newsletters/BoardBrief69.pdf

[Alexander Zlotnik]

"whose only reason for their existence is: (to) EXTERMINATE! everything that looks like the paranormal, spiritual beliefs, and so on."

What is more, it looks like they feel it is their DUTY to do so, to destroy "silly beliefs" and "enlighten" people. Pretty aggressive and militant.
Of course, there will be no retraction or apology,but I am afraid we will see damaging but untrue claims from them

[no one]

Not that it justifies the Esquire hack job on Alexander, but I always thought the title of his book, "Proof of Heaven" is pretty pretentious and kind of begs for this sort of counter action.

According to the database of the company I work for (an international insurance company and a major player in US healthcare insurance) the probability of being sued for malpractice at least once after 30 years of practice as a physician is about 90%, for all practice types. Surgeons have a 94% chance of being sued within 10 years of continual practice. So being sued for malpractice is normal for physicians, especially surgeons. Now some of these suits may be justified, but most are not. The point is that if we disparaged physicians that have been sued, there'd be very few physicians left unscathed or discredited.

[Michael Prescott]

Thanks, Arouet. I guess I overstated it when I said there was no misconduct, though Mays' article makes the offense sound pretty negligible. According to Mays, the patient in one case showed significant improvement even though the spinal surgery was performed at the wrong spot. Because of the patient's improvement, Dr. Alexander initially assumed the surgery was performed correctly, and later changed his report when he realized his error. This is how I read Mays' article, anyway.

At any rate, a $3500 fine is peanuts in a malpractice case.

[Michael Prescott]

"I always thought the title of his book, "Proof of Heaven" is pretty pretentious and kind of begs for this sort of counter action."

I don't like the title either, but I would guess the publisher chose it. I was stuck with many titles I didn't like in my years with a traditional publisher.

Deborah Blum has said she hates the title "Ghost Hunters," which her publisher put on her book. And Dean Radin was aghast to see an image of a floating spoon (reminiscent of spoon bending) on the cover of The Conscious Universe.

Publishers think they are very smart about marketing, but I've sold as many books as a self-published writer in the last three years as I sold throughout my 20-year career with Penguin Books. So maybe they're not quite as smart as they think.

[Rabbitdawg]

A lot of people have found Proof of Heaven to be a source of hope and inspiration, only to have their brief escape from materialist spiritual imprisonment demolished by a poorly researched Esquire story. The problem is, how many of those folks will find their way to this article defending Dr. Alexander?
IANDS followers, readers of this blog, and readers of other blogs linking to the Robert Mays defense are relatively few, compared to the overall readership of the book.

Dr. Alexander's promised response to the Esquire article is long overdue, and this looks like the perfect retort. Perhaps a capsulized summary linking to to the full article would be a great joint press release from Dr. Alexander and Simon & Schuster. Of course, the publishers have already made their buck, so it may be up to Dr. Alexander alone.
The skeptics are quite loud and aggressive, so he'll have his hands full, but I think the benefit for serious discussion of spirituality in a world dominated by dogmatic debunking would be worth the effort.

[no one]

Arouet, I would still argue that what Alexander did, re; the claims against him, was extremely minor as far as these things go. Here's what usually happens in these cases. A diagnosis is made after several tests and charts are filled out and a surgical plan is documented in the chart, usually by dictation from the doctor to a nurse or some other assistant. The doctor may be dictating from short term memory. IN other words, he dictates that he will operate at a certain cervical site and he either misspeaks or his diagnosis was off in the first place. The day for the operation arrives. The patient is prepped and opened and the surgeon sees where the discectomy, laminectomy, fusion should occur. Now he is looking at the problem. He operates on it. Closes and sends the patient off to recovery. It turns out that the OR plan had it documented that the surgery was to have occurred a level above or below where the surgeon actually saw the problem and operated. These spinal procedures can provide relief to patients, but often they do not, or, they even make the problem worse (I know - I spent a year on a study a few years back). So the patient is one that doesn't experience the relief she was hoping for. She gets upset and gets a lawyer. The lawyer discovers the discrepancy between the planned site and the actual site of surgery. The surgeon feels he did nothing wrong because, at the end of the day, he operated on the actual problem. But it is an opportunity for the lawyer to make a case. A settlement occurs. Alexander probably did try to retroactively adjust the plan records to meet the actual records (or vice versa). It happens every day many times a day. I'm not saying I think it's ok. However, medical practice would grind to a stop if these things were seen as major issues. There's just too much going on to never make that kind of error. Apparently the certifying board sees it my way, evidenced by the small fine and the license remaining in good standing. Nothing to see here.

[no one]

P.S. I'm not a doctor or even a particularly doctor friendly person. In my business we all too frequently find doctors engaged in fraudulent, wasteful, unnecessary even harmful practices.

I do try to be fair, though. In Alexander's case I just don't think there's much, if anything, to latch onto in terms of bad character.

[Arouet]

The $3,500 was not for malpractice - it was a disciplinary fine imposed by the medical board, Any malpractice suit would be a completely separate matter.

I don't think the excuse you cited would be accepted by many in the legal or medical community. It is not proper to alter medical records in the way that he did. Dr. Alexander would have known that it was improper. What he could have done was attach a note to the original report, and he should have come straight out and disclosed the error to the patient and advised him to seek a second opinion on whether there was any harm done.

The ipad version of the Esquire article includes the before and after versions of the records by the way - not sure if they have been posted generally online.

I agree the Mays article downplays the severity. Regardless of whether his book is completely truthful or not, this incident is pretty clearly an example of deception. I'm surprised you and Mays aren't more critical of this.

[Bruce Siegel]

"I've sold as many books as a self-published writer in the last three years as I sold throughout my 20-year career with Penguin Books."

Aren't you using the original titles, though, the ones chosen for you?

[Matt Rouge]

Great post!

I looked back at my comments that I made about this post (http://michaelprescott.typepad.com/michael_prescotts_blog/2013/07/in-the-news-.html#comments) to see if I'd been fair, and I think I was, pretty much:

||The discrepancies don't look good, but they don't sound like a debunking, either. At this point, he sounds misinformed about his condition as opposed to lying about it. Who knows, perhaps fudging about it a bit.||

||Unless he was totally lying, Alexander still had a very compelling story to tell. The fact that he was an atheist and had experience in medical matters could have (did?) make for a strong appeal. But even the slightest amount of inaccuracy can destroy credibility in such matters.||

But now we find out that there really were no discrepancies, except for maybe the timing of a statement.

Typical skeptic slash job. The guys who say they defend truth at the microscopic level are the ones who feel they can just say anything if it is against an approved target on their list. Pathetic.

[Kevin W]

Just for clarification: Alexander had a much more bland title for his book, but the publisher changed it to the extant title to stimulate sales. Dr. Alexander himself was not thrilled with the change,as he noted in a number of interviews (Skeptiko, etc.).

[no one]

"I'm surprised you and Mays aren't more critical of this."

Arouet, I reiterate that I do not think it is ok to alter medical records, but I know for a fact that it happens every day. I also know that for a variety of reasons well meaning surgeons operate at the wrong level when performing laminectomies, fusions and discectomies fairly often. This is complicated surgery and even when due diligence is applied and normal professional standards adhered to, mistakes happen. Alexander is not unique in what he did; not by a long shot. As an aside, if anyone asked me, I tell them to avoid spinal surgery at all costs.

I will further add that I never thought Alexander's NDE (or whatever it was) was a particularly strong one from an evidentiary standpoint. In fact, it has a lot of elements that are not at all like typical NDEs. To my mind it has always been a little more hallucinatory than most NDEs. I cringed when I saw that he had not only written a popular book about his experience, but that it had been released with that title. I was even somewhat annoyed that his story was being taken more seriously just because he is a physician (so elitist). So I'm not defending Alexander because I am a blind believer.

What I object to is the idea that unless the messenger is absolutely sinless, we must reject the message. By that standard we certainly would have to reject whatever any so called investigative journalist says because I'm sure that they have all lied, cheated and stolen at some point in their lives. Ditto "the skeptics". What of scientists releasing new findings? Why do the journalists reporting on these not dig through their dirty laundry; rejecting the findings based on what they would surely find there?

Why have rational discussions concerning the objective merits of anything when all we have to do is set in our minds what we want to believe and then denigrate the character of anyone who thinks otherwise? Anyone who thinks differently than us must be a degenerate liar and we'll prove it no matter what it takes.

Let's assume the worse, we'll take it face value - Alexander, like so many of his peers (50% of neurologists self-report having done a surgery at the wrong level), performed a couple spinal surgeries at the wrong level and then, in one known incident, tried to cover it up. What does that have to do with his coma experience that he wrote about?

[Sandy]

The original article by Mays, with the direct quote from Dr Potter, is still posted on Dr Alexander's Eternea website:

http://www.eternea.org/PDF/EsquireArticleOnEbenAlexanderDistortsTheFacts.pdf

[Michael Prescott]

"Aren't you using the original titles, though, the ones chosen for you?"

That's true, Bruce - it would be too confusing to change the titles now. But when I talked about the publisher's lack of marketing skill, I was thinking about more than just the titles. For instance, they ran a single ad for one of my books, then told me they'd "reached the limit of what advertising can do." Truth is, traditional publishers can be very effective at promoting high-profile books, but they almost always drop the ball on their midlist titles, which are 95% or more of their product line. What other industry consigns 95% of its merchandise to oblivion because they're fixated on just 5%?

No One, I agree completely with your comment about Proof of Heaven. The book did not particularly impress me. I think Alexander had a real experience, but I have read many NDEs that were much more evidential. I also found the stuff about flying around on a giant butterfly to be closer to an LSD trip than an NDE (not that I've tried LSD, but that's what I imagine it would be like). It reminded me of the animated Beatles move Yellow Submarine ...

Sandy, thanks for the link.

Kevin, thanks for confirming that the publisher changed the title. The book was obviously worked over a great deal; I assume a ghostwriter was hired to make it read better. The writing is too slick and polished to be the work of a first-timer. Not that there's anything wrong with that - ghosting is a legitimate service, and often necessary when dealing with a manuscript written by someone with a great story to tell but without all the technical skills needed to tell it.

[Matt Rouge]

no one,

Great comments.

Here's my guess about what happens. I think people who do not truly flatline go to the Astral (4D) instead of the Afterlife (5D and up). They are essentially dreaming.

Now before the imaginary skeptic in the room jumps on this, a caveat: dreams are real too! They are just real in the Astral, where thoughts themselves are real. You can also meet entities of all types, such as spirits passing through on their way to 5D (who sometimes need a little guidance--I've done that in my dreams many times), spirits visiting downward from 5D (meeting you in your dreams after they die is the standard way deceased relatives have of saying they're OK), beings that occupy the Astral because they want to, your own thoughts becoming alive ("functional entities"), and lots of other stuff. It's a big place!

The butterfly stuff does sound like LSD, dreams--in other words, an Astral experience. It sounds as though he was very deeply OBE and spending lots of time in the Astral, where his senses could have gotten used to his Astral body and had some very clear, realistic experiences. Just as clear as in an NDE, but not necessarily of the same nature.

In sum, it sounds as though he was in the Astral and had some angelic beings and spirit guides helping him through his travails and learn at the same time.

Thoughts?

He was probably very solidly

[Matt Rouge]

Argh, why can I never write coherently here? I swear I can write, people!

[Art]

"I also found the stuff about flying around on a giant butterfly to be closer to an LSD trip than an NDE (not that I've tried LSD, but that's what I imagine it would be like). It reminded me of the animated Beatles move Yellow Submarine." Michael Prescott
--------------------------

Why not a butterfly? On the other side we will be connected to everything (it's a holographic universe thing)

Excerpt from Randy Gehling's (age 10) NDE description,

""That was really cool! I kind of felt as though my body exploded - in a nice way - and became a million different atoms - and each single atom could think its own thoughts and have its own feelings. All at once I seemed to feel like I was a boy, a girl, a dog, a cat, a fish. Then I felt like I was an old man, an old woman - and then a little tiny baby."

http://www.near-death.com/experiences/animals04.html

[Art]

Eben Alexander's NDE might have been being controlled by his deceased sister. She might have been sharing with him something that she found enjoyable on the other side. He might not have been in control at all. He said that there was a woman with him whom at the time he didn't know who she was. Only after coming home did he find out that woman was his deceased sister. I reiterate Eben might not have been the one in control. He might have been being taken for a ride by his sister! As in "wheeee! isn't this fun?"

The physics of the other side or Heaven is very different than this side. It is the difference between the physics of a normal piece of photographic film and the physics of holographic film. Holographic film looks like swirls of color, each piece contains the whole, and everything is interconnected, and everything interpenetrates everything.

If our universe is a holographic projection and the other side or heaven is that original holographic film that means that heaven will contain everything that is here. The difference will be that whatever you focus your attention on will will be what you experience. Space and time don't exist on the other side the way they do here. Everything, past, present, and future exist all at one time. The only thing limiting what you experience or "see" will be what you focus your attention on.

I have read many NDE's where they said by the merest thought they were suddenly seeing something from their past. As in Mark H's NDE where he said he saw a mountain he had seen as a child.

[alanborky]

Randy Gehling age 10 "I kind of felt as though my body exploded - in a nice way - and became a million different atoms - and each single atom could think its own thoughts and have its own feelings."

You said it kid!

Michael Prescott "I have read many NDEs that were much more evidential. I also found the stuff about flying around on a giant butterfly to be closer to an LSD trip than an NDE".

Ancient Greeks "Soul = Psyche = butterfly".

Michael the NDEs of those other experiencers may've been more evidential but Eben Alexander's awesome credentials meant he had to be stopped before others such scientific whistleblowers started coming out the closet.

Call it a conspiracy or a concerted effort but this sort of thing's been going on since before Houdini.

Up until the middle of the last century police'd raid mediums and various evidence and eye witness reports'd be collected supposedly proving their fraudulence but what people forget's these were the same wife beating bent alcoholics who were trained to plant evidence on kids to get them sent to Australia or lie through their teeth to equally corrupt judges working class blokes deliberately impaled themselves on the innocently brandished swordsticks of sorely abused gentry before then attempting to impede the progress of their Lordships' coaches or Rolls Royces by deliberately placing their head in the way of the wheels.

But it's not just the police.

Over here they had a documentary called A Very British UFO Hoax which was featured in all the papers even on the BBC starring a working model of a flying saucer with certain rent-a-mob psychology experts and TV journalists chortling away together at what idiots the British public were because they reported seeing a real life flying saucer.

But it WAS a flying saucer.

And it even flew.

[no one]

"Here's my guess about what happens. I think people who do not truly flatline go to the Astral (4D) instead of the Afterlife (5D and up). They are essentially dreaming"

I think that is probably true of Dr. Alexander. One can, it seems, still obtain some valid information on the astral. I believe I have done this myself on a few occasions and others have reported the same. Still, it is not an NDE. Some mountain climbers that fall from ordinarily fatal heights, yet live, appear to experience elements of the classic NDE, as do some people who are in imminent danger in car accidents and other situations. So I'm not so sure that flat lining is necessary. My theory is that what is necessary is the 1. physical death (flatline) or 2. The expectation of death within a moment; a powerful psychological force which causes the individual ego to diminish or shut down to the point where the higher self emerges prominent.

"not that I've tried LSD, but that's what I imagine it would be like"

A lot of people think that is what it would be like, but it isn't. A large dose of opium, OTOH, would reproduce those yellow submarine-ish/Alexander-ish effects.

The psychedelics really do seem to cause some higher aspects of the soul to come to the forefront. It's the dissolution of the ego while wide awake that makes these things so interesting and powerful. True hallucinations are rare, though living breathing arabesque patterns on complex surfaces (e.g. wood grains, carpets, textured walls, fields of flowers) are common at sufficient doses. Closed eyes visuals are typically layers of complex patterns in vivid color, colors not found on earth, developing and then blooming intensely and then returning to, the very source of creation itself.

[Art]

If you watched "Heroes" the series on TV there as a character named Hiro Nakamura that was the master of space and time. He could move around in time and space just by focusing his attention on where he wanted to be. That is sort of how it will be on the other side. We will be masters of space and time. On the near-death.com website there are a couple of good articles about NDE's and time. I especially like the article written by C.D. Rollins .

[Matt Rouge]

no one,

Here's an interesting spiritual experience I had.

Early 80s. I was about 13 or so. Friend was staying over for the night. So, to make things equal, we were both sleeping on the floor.

I had a dream that a nuclear bomb hit. I was dead and died in the dream. Suddenly I was floating over my real body. I floated down into it and woke up.

At the time, I thought it was just a neat dream. Really neat. Of course, that was a very clear-cut OBE.

I wonder if it is not the same for those people fall but survive. They go OBE really suddenly. But then is it really the same as other types of NDEs? I haven't read a lot of case studies, so I don't know, but maybe you or others here could provide your input.

Timewise, they would have to snap into their bodies really quickly, wouldn't they? It would not be like a cardiac arrest where they are outside the body for awhile.

I think the way in which their experiences could be like an NDE and not an Astral experience is that they could go OBE with a very clear mind and not via the usual physiological mechanism of dreaming, or an unusual medical circumstance like Eben's. This could give them clear visuals of their own bodies similar to those of NDEs.

Thoughts?

[Smithy]

This week I had the Robert Mays paper read by a neurologist who is generally sympathetic towards NDE'rs, nevertheless a little skeptical about NDE claims, and apparently in particular about the EA story.

He is adamant that EA release the medical records of his case, so that a better, i.e. objective scientific judgement would become possible. Sure, this demand sounds reasonable. But, on the other hand, I wonder whether it would resolve existing problems. This type of "discussions" (or rather, shouting matches) usually knows no satisfactory conclusion.

[Paul]

Good points No One. Even if he was sinless (like me!) Eben Alexander is as
still as susceptible to error as any other human. References to his professional misdemeanours seem to me largely irrelevant - if the only objection to his report is that he must be lying, then it's easily disposed of: why on earth would someone with his position in society make it up? He has taken a massive risk and I think it is a brave thing to do.

That doesn't mean what he reported is a fact of course. Personally I didn't find the summary of the experience evidential or even persuasive but then again it wasn't my experience. Who knows that it meant?

Really, as with many pseudo sceptical criticisms it amounts to an ad hom attack as far as I can see. This is seldom a productive was to determine the truth.

[Sandy]

"Closed eyes visuals are typically layers of complex patterns in vivid color, colors not found on earth, developing and then blooming intensely and then returning to, the very source of creation itself."

I've never taken drugs, but I like to watch music with my eyes closed and the lights turned off. It can be sort of like what you've described, no one.

[Rossoli]

Interesting point Art: ”Eben Alexander's NDE might have been being controlled by his deceased sister. ”. Matt: ”They are essentially dreaming”. I think that's so to. There's a shift from ordinary dreams to lucid dreams that can occur, I think, both when we are in body and out of it. I mean, in astral condition our dreams might shift from a diffuse unfocused/fragmented dreaming – even no dreaming at all - to clear active lucid dreaming, just as within our brains. We just have moved our dreaming mind from the sleeping body to another form. I've read some OBE where the person mentions the shift from a clear OBE to a more dream like experience. Eben Alexander's seem to fit there to ('underworld' vs 'heaven').

”meeting you in your dreams after they die is the standard way deceased relatives have of saying they're OK ”. Well, I didn't meet daddy when I was sleeping. I met him just once, several years after his departure. When I occasionally dream about him there is no intensity at all in those 'meetings', no true contact at all. Still we were so close.

When I was a little kid I had OBE's. I didn't understand that until a decade or so ago. I thought of them as dreams, but they fit to the OBE scheme. I remember them (basically one) because of the terrifying encounter I had with an entity that actually harmed me and gave me a trauma I had to deal with by my own therapeutic adventures: challenging the darkness in my mare dreams for many years. I believe this violent spirit effectively stopped my future OBE-adventures, possibly also blinded my 'astral' eye. He's the only spirit I'm aware of that I've seen. I just now realize that maybe, maybe, here's the cause that have permitted my father from appearing in my dreams and made his visit to me so delayed? I think he's been around playing some tricks though, like the joker he was.

alanborky: ”Ancient Greeks "Soul = Psyche = butterfly" That's nice! I love butterflies.

[Kathleen]

”meeting you in your dreams after they die is the standard way deceased relatives have of saying they're OK ”.

Matt, you might be interested to know about my experiences with this. A beloved relative of mine died at a very young age, she was still a child. Over a DECADE later,completely out of the blue, I had an interesting series of dreams about her. First, I was told she was still alive, that she had always been alive. Then I met her and she was completely grown up as an adult.

It doesn't prove anything, of course, but it was extremely odd to me that all of a sudden, out of the blue, I should be having these dreams.

[Duck Soup]

Dr Eben Alexander is very highly regarded by his colleagues. How do I know that ?

I communicated with his very good friend Dr Allan Hamilton and he very kindly told me that not only was Dr Alexander a first rate doctor but that he was very impressed with his experience and doesn't doubt it.

His wife and family are as normal as nice as anyone could wish for and I don't give two hoots what the nasty mud slinging low down hatchet job sceptics and their cronies think.

Stuff them.

[Aftrbrnr]

I feel like the mentioning of the Dalai Lama was intentional. IMO, it was to make it seem like the Esquire article was impartial and not a hit piece by materialists. I feel by portraying someone who is spiritual (The Dalai Lama in this case) has critical opinions about EA's experiences show that it's not just the materialists that have a problem with EA.

[no one]

"Thoughts?"

Matt, what I've read about the mountain climbers that survive falls is just excerpts (snips and bits) available on line. So I don't know the full extent of their reported experiences. There was a book written on the topic that I haven't read, though I'd lie to. I searched because Michael (I think it was Michael) mentioned the topic some time ago. One thing that they experience is the life review. I've have never heard of an OBEr undergoing the life review. They do report OBEs as well, but the life review seems, to me, to put them more in line with NDEs. Similarly, there are reports on the Long's site where people were having a car accident and report life reviews, OBEs, meeting deceased relatives and even the being of light. Then all of the sudden the accident is either over or was avoided and they are back in their body relatively unscathed - at least not physically at or near death. The reports seem honest and sincere enough.

Then again, there are some NDE reports, where the experiencer was undergoing a medical crisis, that resemble the classic OBE. The experiencer does not go through the tunnel of light, meet deceased relatives, have a life review; none of that. Just finds himself floating above his body observing what is going on in the room, often accurately recording - and later recalling - details.

So I don't know. There is obviously some overlap between OBE and NDE. Yet the absence of the being of light, the expansive sense of oneness and intense spirituality and life review from OBEs points to the importance of the proximity of death for triggering this specific set of features.

I am certain that when I have OBEs they are a mixture of objectively verifiable perceptions made from beyond the local of my physical body (and sometimes beyond the temporal setting of my physical body as well), unverifiable perceptions of non-physical "worlds" and obviously dream like images/hallucinatory material. I get the sense that this is what others who have OBEs experience based on what I've read from Monroe and his various exponents.

The OBE seems like a less "clean" and less spiritually uplifting event than the NDE. I do think that the reason is that the NDE typically occurs on lower astral levels, which means to me that it involves far more direction and coloring from the individual ego. The higher self does not have to come into play for an OBE to be activated - or at least not so much.

[no one]

ummm "though I'd like to..."

[no one]

The mountain climbers who fall and have NDEs stories were compiled by a Swiss geologist named Heim, who had himself been blown off a mountain by strong gust of wind and had experienced a transformative NDE during the several seconds of his fall. It was his own NDE that motivated Heim to investigate whether or not others had undergone the same thing.

"One of Heim’s most important findings showed that death by falling was “actually a far more painful experience for onlookers and relatives than it is for victims themselves...95% of fall survivors told him they felt calm and joyful during their falls...they had, so to speak, fallen into heaven...they went through stages, beginning with enhanced and accelerated mental activity, an unusually clear perception of the outcome, an expanded sense of time, and a sudden life review. The culminating experience was a powerful moment of joy and supernatural beauty... no grief was felt, nor was there paralyzing fright of the sort that can happen in instances of lesser danger...there was no anxiety, no trace of despair, nor pain... but rather seriousness, profound acceptance, and a dominant mental quickness and sense of surety”.

[no one]

"I feel by portraying someone who is spiritual (The Dalai Lama in this case) has critical opinions about EA's experiences show that it's not just the materialists that have a problem with EA. "

Agreed aftrbrnr.

"I do think that the reason is that the NDE typically occurs on lower astral levels..."

Like Matt, this blog has always been a typo version of the Bermuda Triangle for me. I meant to say, of course, that it is the OBE (not the NDE) that typically occurs on the lower astral levels.

[Matt Rouge]

no one,

Great information and thoughts. Thank you!

[A Comma In Infinity]

From Becker's Hospital Review...

"Neurosurgeons are most likely to face malpractice suits, as 19 percent face a claim each year, followed by thoracic-cardiovascular surgeons (18.9 percent) and general surgeons (15.3 percent), according to a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine."

[steve em]

I think NDE provide some exvcellent s evidence of survival . That being said the content of the visions does very from culture to culture. I personally believe that once the consciousness has left the body. There is no evidence of any kind of consistent content for an after life,because it is always filtered though a corporeal being.
The disembodied states experience in non temporal non spatial and when it is communicated via mediumship,or remembering it as part of a past life ,the filter of our brains gives it a temporal and familiar shape. I knw that experience like Satori can not even come close to being accurately described and that happens when you are in your

[steve em]

Sorry i mean tto say a concistent content for the intermediate state between lives,and or the realm of the spirit.

[A Comma In Infinity]

I paid the $1.99 for the article in the hopes that I would find a place for comments. I wanted to alert the author, Luke Dittrich, to Mays' article. I don't see a place for comments.

I want to find a direct pipeline to present Dittrich with a link to Mays' article.

(The trouble is, I'm at work, and I'm trying to squeeze in my little project while attending to my duties.)

My working assumption until proven otherwise is that Luke Dittrich has too cozy of a situation as an award-winning journalist to want to deflate his position by really investigating.

It appears possible (very likely?) that he'd rather be big than right.

If Dittrich has real backbone and focus, he'll unflinchingly read Mays' essay and fearlessly "hear" what is being written, and act accordingly.

However, that could well mean that Dittrich would have to tell the editor of Esquire that he was wrong (or, even that he lied...?), which would jeopardize his professional standing and his income.

As the saying goes, follow the money. Also, find the sources of social strokes.

It can be hard to give up scoring all of those glitzy, glossy awards.

This could be what is going on with Dittrich. It may be that he's suckling at the udder of public accolades at the expense of his integrity.

When I get some more time, I will try to find a pipeline to Dittrich. Any leads? TIA.

Gotta get back to work!

[Michael Prescott]

I recall reading that someone (possibly Greg Taylor of The Daily Grail) has been in touch with Esquire, and they told him the Mays article had been forwarded to Dittrich. I don't remember the details, but I'm quite sure Esquire and Dittrich are aware of the criticism by now.

[A Comma In Infinity]

Thanks for the update, Michael. Glad to hear Dittrich is aware of the criticisms.

[Sandy]

If you want to contact Dittrich, he has a twitter account:
https://twitter.com/lukedittrich

He also has an email address provided on his twitter page.

[Douglas]

Not sure where else to put this:

This week I started an experiment with automatic writing in an effort to contact my 'spirit guide' (for want of a better term; change this for higher self, unconscious self, functional entity etc as required!)

When I say automatic writing, I actually mean automatic typing.

Using the keyboard and entering into a mild trance state and then typing what comes to mind.

After a couple of fairly uninspiring random entries, I found myself typing this out on 20th September:

----------
ME: 'What is your name?

AUTO: 'My name is Rebecca I am your guide, you requested a guide and I am here to help you. Begin slowly, build up slowly to better communication enjoy this interaction with me, I will try to help you best I can Douglas.'

ME: 'Thank you.'

AUTO: 'Don’t mention it, I think this is a good connection'
------------

I was quite impressed with this one. I don't know where the name Rebecca came from, but apparently, with automatic writing, the key is not to overly analyse it.

I was considering my next step in this communication when I received an email from LinkedIn on 22nd August.

The message said:

------------
Details From Linked In Connections

You're now connected to Rebecca. Douglas, Congratulations!

You and Rebecca are now connected
------------

This is quite a synchronicity! I signed up to Linkedin in only last month as it is now required for work, but I rarely use it, and in fact had not been on it for several days.

What's weirder is that I never sent a request to this ‘LinkedIn Rebecca’. I don't know her. LinkedIn seems to have linked us as we do work in the same industry.

I do view this as quite a remarkable coincidence. Not only have I just been connected to a 'Rebecca' two days after seemingly making contact with my guide, but you will also notice that the term 'connected' is also used in both.

By the way, I don't think for a moment that the ‘LinkedIn Rebecca’ is my guide. Rather, I think it is the coincidence itself which is the message, it's a synchronistic message, informing me that I have established some form of connection.

I'm going to take this as a message that the attempt to contact my guide is working, and I'm going to continue communicating with 'Rebecca' and see what happens.

[Douglas]

oops, when I said 20th September, I meant of course August.

[Michael Prescott]

Very interesting, Douglas! I agree that this is a remarkable synchronicity, validation, coincidence - whatever we choose to call it.

[A comma in infinity]

@sandy -- thank you for providing the twitter acct addy of luke dittrich.

[Sandy]

You're welcome! :)

FYI, Robert Mays was just interviewed for the Skeptiko podcast.

http://www.skeptiko.com/220-esquire-proof-of-heaven-expose-debunked/

[giorgia]

WONDERFUL Post.appreciate your share... awaiting more.