The fourth and last excerpt from a chapter of my book, currently in progress.
----
A natural question at this point would be: How do we know that the experiences of Mrs. Crans and Dr. Wiltse are not hallucinations? In fact, if it’s true that consciousness processes our perceptions according to mental categories, how can we be sure that any of our experiences are not hallucinations? How can we trust our perceptions at all?
A thoroughgoing skeptic would say we can’t, but not one actually tries to live by this dictum. In practice, we do accept our perceptions as accurate — or at least accurate enough — most of the time. Yet we’re aware that we can be fooled by optical illusions or by mental changes brought on by drugs, illness, or injury. Our practical method of determining what’s true is mainly based on consensus. If you’re the only one who sees an elephant galloping down the freeway, you may be imagining it. If other people see it too, you’re on safer ground. This is the value of what is known in parapsychology as veridical experiences — experiences that can be independently confirmed by the reports of others.
In the case of Mrs. Crans, we have two veridical components. One is her accurate description of Charley’s room, 1500 miles from where she rested, as confirmed by Charley himself. The other is her description of her late daughter’s appearance and actions, again seconded by Charley. Adding credibility to the account is that Charley reported the spiritual visitation even before receiving Mrs. Crans’s letter.
In the case of Dr. Wiltse, we have the statements of his doctor and other witnesses, which Wiltse took the trouble to collect after the fact, verifying his description of the people present in the room and their behavior. He even obtained sworn depositions from some of them. An additional factor is Wiltse’s medical condition; the attending physician reported that Wiltse was so deeply comatose, he showed no response to a needle thrust deeply into his flesh at various points throughout the lower part of his body. Even ordinary mental processes should not be possible in such a condition, let alone the detailed observations that Wiltse reported.
Finally, there’s the issue of commonality between his report and many others. If one explorer returns from an unknown continent and makes a report, we may be skeptical; if dozens, hundreds, or even thousands of other explorers unconnected with each other deliver similar reports, we are entitled to accept the basic truth of what they’re saying, even if there are some discrepancies and variations among their separate experiences.
If Wiltse were the only person ever to report leaving his body when critically ill, closely observing the deathbed scene, or finding himself in a spirit world, we might chalk up his account to mere fancy. But his is only one of countless reports, some of which are even better attested. Despite differences in the experiences that have been related, enough common elements have emerged to form a recognizable pattern. These elements include:
- Disconnecting both emotionally and literally from the body, often with the parallel development of a “soul body” that can hover in air and pass through solid objects, and which may be connected to the physical body by a cord.
- Observations of one’s environment, typically with greatly enhanced perception.
- A frustrating inability to communicate with the living.
- A feeling of health, relief, and “exuberance.”
- Transition to a different plane of reality, accomplished by rapid flight.
- An earthlike quality to this other reality (a road, flowers, trees).
- A barrier blocking further progress.
- A cloud or a bright light that somehow embodies a higher intelligence, which communicates telepathically with the experiencer.
- A choice to remain or return, based on whether or not one’s work on earth is complete.
- The sudden resumption of life in the physical body, often accompanied by surprise and disappointment.
- A compelling need to relate the experience.
All these elements are present in Wiltse’s account. Other common elements in NDEs, not seen in the Wiltse case, include:
- A transition through a tunnel or other passageway.
- A reunion with departed loved ones, who communicate telepathically.
- An encounter with a religious figure (or more than one), usually consistent with the experiencer’s personal belief system or background.
- A comprehensive review of one’s life, in which the experiencer feels the direct impact his actions had on other people, for better or worse.
- Sometimes, a temporary merging with the higher intelligence (which may or may not be identified as God), in which the meaning of life and the purpose of existence are grasped in a way that is instantly clear but, later, almost impossible to communicate.
- Lasting changes in one's personality, behavior, and philosophy.
Some patterns seem to be cultural in nature. Western NDEs often involve a choice, as in the Wiltse case. NDEs in India typically exclude the idea of choice or a personal mission that must be completed on earth, and instead present the person’s brush with the afterlife as a kind of clerical mistake, a bureaucratic mishap. Often a different person of the same name was scheduled to die that day, and some angelic bumbler picked up the wrong person!
Do I think clerical mistakes of that sort really happen? No. Nor am I convinced that the experiencer has a genuine choice about whether or not to resume earthly life. (Dr. Wiltse’s choice proved illusory; his choice to remain was not respected, and he was required to go back anyway. This is not uncommon.) And I’m dubious of encounters with iconic religious figures like Jesus or the Virgin Mary, which constitute a minority of NDE reports.
In all these cases, I think a narrative is constructed that can make sense of the situation in terms the person can understand. The experiencer, temporarily caught between “frequencies,” having made only a partial transition from one level of consciousness to the next, lacks the ability to fully process and interpret what’s happening to him. Any familiar-seeming and superficially logical interpretation may be sufficient to get him safely through the experience and back on firmer ground. (Think of the invisible hands that Dr. Wiltse imagined carrying him through space. The “hands” helped make the experience intelligible to him.)
Moreover, I suspect that interpretive issues like this are extremely common when dealing with the liminal state — a state in which we’re tuned in to more than one frequency at a time. In that condition, we’re receiving new and unfamiliar input, but we have yet to develop the mental categories and concepts to process it. In such cases, we inevitably fall back on familiar narratives and familiar (even comforting) imagery to fill in the gaps. This point will become more important as we go along.
Recent Comments