Numbers and Near-Death Experiences
Twelve years ago, I drove to Ohio to interview a man who claimed he died and experienced “the other side”. Months earlier I had finished his book, My Descent into Death that described his spiritual journey while in France with his wife and college students. Howard was an art professor at the University of Kentucky and a self-proclaimed atheist who had no time for ideas like God, religion, or the afterlife. This radically changed after believing his consciousness traveled across the veil while in a French hospital waiting for surgery due to a duodenal perforation. At this point he describes a detailed journey involving an out of body experience, beings of darkness and light, a life review, and a life changing conversation with Christ that resulted in a major paradigm shift.
What in the world does this have to do with Tom and David Chivers’ book How to Read Numbers?
The experience above is an unpredictable anecdote based off a personal account. Chivers’ wouldn’t recommend we take a story like this and run. Plus, as westerners, many of us are naturally suspicious of claims like this that challenge our scientific minds and even religious assumptions about the after life. These stories and their details do not always fit neatly in either one of these boxes. On top of that, reports like this could be fabricated to sell books or gain attention. These experiences could simply be hallucinations of a dying brain in trauma.
However, the number of cases regarding this phenomenon and the quality of research around it is jarring…if accurate.
Near death experiences… consciousness studies…other worldly adventures…can we really take this seriously?
Whether it’s this subject (which I know is a bit taboo), business, engineering, or medicine, Chivers’ provides some important tools to spot both intentional and unintentional limitations when numbers are being interpreted or reported. The value of How to Read Numbers is that when data and research standards are known and met, they may just point us to some conclusions, solutions, or questions that we never anticipated.
I was surprised to find quality, academic research around this topic. The findings around the phenomenon known as “near death experiences” or “NDE’s” is compelling. It went beyond four or five people claiming to see the pearly gates in books at the local Christian bookstore. Dr. Bruce Greyson who is the Professor Emeritus of Psychiatry and Neurobehavioral Sciences at the University of Virginia gave these numbers in, The Handbook of Near-Death Experiences, a very dense book, “Taken together, it is safe to say that between 1975 and 2005, at least 55 researchers or research teams in North America, Europe, Australia, and Asia published at least 65 research studies involving 3,500 NDErs, addressing the experience, its aftereffects, or both.” At this point there have been over 30 years of research and 600 peer reviewed scholarly articles dealing with this phenomenon that cuts across multiple disciplines like medicine, psychology, parapsychology, thanatology, and of course religion.
Before reading Chivers’ book I had never heard of “p-value” or really understood “statistical significance”. So many things cannot be verified or predicted with absolute certainty, but they can be weighed against coincidence or randomness. In fact, what ultimately piqued my curiosity with near death research, assuming the numbers are accurate, was the likelihood that there would be this many people across the globe having common experiences that contained almost identical elements resulting in similar aftereffects. Also, what agenda would this field of research have, besides curiosity? Novelty maybe? Chivers does say, “The problem is that scientific journals want to publish scientific results that are interesting.” (Chivers, 104) However, as interesting as NDE’s are, this field has also been known to bring ridicule and dismissive attitudes from both the scientific community and religious world.
Regardless of where we land with this fascinating subject, this book helps us maintain healthy suspicion overall, with not only numbers reported in various fields, but with all types of biased assertions made by academia, Fox, CNN, the Joe Rogan Show, the preacher on the radio, or our neighbor across the street.
Research stats in general should be treated with a healthy amount of caution, which is what I believe this book communicates well when discerning data. Numbers and evidence can be cut, exaggerated, cherry picked, misread, or manipulated for intentional or unintentional reasons. Several cases in this book illustrate that when humans are involved there is bound to be agendas and fallibilities. There were times when I thought, “Goodness, can you believe any studies or “data” out there?” I believe we can, but, like Chivers’ implies, we should be aware of several factors and limitations before taking it all in hook, line, and sinker.
Now, what do we do when data analysis, like that at University of Virginia, is meeting quality standards, but is doing so in an unconventional field and has evidence that points in a direction that may challenge our assumptions? I think good researchers look for things that might prove their theories wrong. I have a great amount of respect for people who have said, “The evidence, or my understanding of it, led me to change my position on (fill in the blank).” In fact, several of the initially skeptical researchers in near death studies have said just that.
I believe this book is helpful in two major areas of analysis. It helps sharpen our critical thinking skills concerning data and stats, especially while we pursue information around our NPO’s. I need more survey’s! Secondly, it better helps us understand what quality research looks like. Which prompts us to pay closer attention to data, even in peculiar fields, that points to evidence that may just shake up our world. My hope is to remain open minded while maintaining high standards of research.
Chivers, Tom, and David Chivers. How to Read Numbers: A Guide to Statistics in the News (and Knowing When to Trust Them). London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 2021.
Holden, Janice Miner, Bruce Greyson, and Debbie James, eds. The Handbook of Near-Death Experiences: Thirty Years of Investigation. Santa Barbara, Calif: Praeger Publishers, 2009.
Storm, Howard, and Howard Storm. My Descent into Death: A Second Chance at Life. 1st U.S. ed. New York: Doubleday, 2005.
About the Author
Adam Harris
I am currently the Associate Pastor at a church called Godwhy in Hendersonville, TN near Nashville. We love questions and love people even more. Our faith community embraces God and education wholeheartedly. I graduated from Oral Roberts University for undergrad and Vanderbilt for my masters. I teach historical critical Biblical studies at my church to help our community through their questions and ultimately deepen their faith. I love research, writing, learning, and teaching. I oversee our staff and leadership development. Before being at Godwhy I worked as a regional sales coach and director for Anytime Fitness. I've been married for over 13 years to my best friend and we have two amazing boys that keep us busy.13 responses to “Numbers and Near-Death Experiences”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Hi Adam,
You stated, “I think good researchers look for things that prove their theories wrong. I have a great amount of respect for people who have said, “The evidence, or my understanding of it, led me to change my position on (fill in the blank).”” That kind of blows my mind. To start from a place of I don’t believe or think this thing I am researching is true, but I want to look at it anyway and be open to changing my mind. That is very different mindset to start from. Can you unpack that a bit more? Do you have examples from your research on NDE?
Great question! When I first heard this idea it sort of blew my mind a little as well. Donald Hoffman’s approach from MIT is a great example of this. He explains that scientists will begin with a theory they believe as true, but seek to disprove it or find the holes in order to test its integrity and validity. If it continues to hold up under scrutiny they may be on to something.
Dr. Raymond Moody the Father of near death experiences, who actually coined that term eventually threw up his hands after 25 years of studying these and looking for natural explanations. He said he had to accept that something metaphysical was happening based off the evidence he had gathered.
Veridical perception is widely examined where people report observing details or events in the room or outside it while they are supposedly unconscious and it is verified by hospital staff or family.
Hi Adam,
Most of your post is addressing an issue that I have admittedly had a degree of skepticism about and I have not done any sort of deep dive into the subject.
So nothing to comment on that! But your primary point is a good one and, I think, the goal of all good research: to provide rationale for whatever assertion is being made. I agree wholeheartedly with your final comments–that this book will sharpen all of our skills in data collection, interpretation, and communication. As such, it’s a valuable book for all of us at the beginning of this Doctoral journey….even if the data stretches our comfort zones or assumptions a bit!
Thanks for the reply Scott, that’s mainly what I was trying to get across without the NDE subject eclipsing the book we read. The book reminds us to be cautious with numbers and stats if they don’t meet certain standards, but what happens when they are meeting certain standards and the data points in a directions we didn’t expect. That’s very exciting to me and like you said very helpful for solid research during this doctoral journey!
I want to hear more about your actual interview with this man! What surprised you the most?
Your thoughts also reminded me that the gospel writers (as I understand it) likely interviewed Jesus’ disciples and based their writings on those accounts, in addition to their own experiences as applicable. Like you described regarding NDE research, I can only imagine that the gospel writers faced significant skepticism and disbelief. I’m glad they persevered despite the ridicule they must have faced!
Would love to share that story with you sometime. It’s very long! He was actually my first interview, but I’ve done several since then, including Dr. Raymond Moody who put this field on the map in 1975, now Dr. Greyson at UVA leads the investigation and research.
What surprised me the most? God’s priorities verses human priorities. According to Howard, and many other NDEer’s, the things we think God would be concerned about, God is not, and some things that are not on our radar as a high priority is incredibly important for God. Love, empathy, and compassion are at the top of the list. Competition, monetary success, awards, and religious doctrine are at the bottom. These priority shifts happen a lot for people who claim these experiences. Many end up changing their vocations and make major life changes.
Agreed, the early church faced major rejection while reporting their experiences that didn’t fit within or meet religious or secular expectations. They couldn’t help but share there stories despite the ridicule which validates it’s legitimacy even more for me. Glad they did!
First, I had to look up thanatology. Literally never seen that word, before. Thanks!
Second, I appreciate your conclusion related to our NPO’s. I’m feeling challenged to make sure I do a better/more comprehensive job with the numbers (and yes, more surveys) and be open to finding things that may ‘shake up our world’s’ (and assumptions).
Thanks Tim and I had to look up Thanatology myself when I first saw it. Sounds like the study of Thanos from the Avengers!
I’m with you. Feeling the same!
Adam… you interview the most interesting people. I love that you don’t hesitate to hop on a plane or drive to research a topic.
NDE’s have always fascinated me. An atheist having a conversation with Christ while occupying the thin space between this world and the next. What a powerful testimony!
You wrote:
“There were times when I thought, “Goodness, can you believe any studies or “data” out there?” I believe we can, but, like Chivers’ implies, we should be aware of several factors and limitations before taking it all in hook, line, and sinker.” I agree with you, we have to trust the numbers but not be afraid to investigate the source and report responsibly. This was a great post, Adam!
Thanks Jonita, it’s a subject that has fascinated me for a while that actually has some solid research. Its a big question! While we’re in London, I’ll have to tell you about the Dr. Raymond Moody interview I did! One of the most brilliant and sweet people I’ve ever met who has some amazing insight on this subject.
Chivers did a good job of giving the reader a reality check while we swim through stats and numbers. Thanks for the reply Jonita!
I like it….Healthy suspicion.
Before I lose this thought, I just read Bayes theorem p.70-75 and I still don’t get it. But it does bring me back to your comment about healthy suspicion.
Our frail human minds have wrestled with understanding reality and numbers plus possibilities/statistics have emerged as the primary way of coming to grips with our environment.
Bayes theorem, however, casts serious doubts on the research and studies being done. His examples of the “Prosecutors Fallacy” where DNA test were WRONG, sort of rattle me. Numbers put innocent people in jail. Yet it happens in our court system today.
Sigh…where am I going with this. My conclusion, I suppose, is that numbers do matter BUT we have to be so careful in swallowing the bait. There just might be a hook embedded in that sweet worm…
Healthy Suspicion…you comments have changed my life….thanks for your comments….Shalom…Russ
I appreciate the encouraging comments Russell! I’m glad that was helpful. “Healthy Suspicion” was lingering in my head while reading this book, I think it keeps me from being to gullible or too cynical. I’m learning with you my friend!
I agree that we must critically analyze the data or figures presented to us, whether they are in the news, in politics, or even in the context of religious services. Moreover, we also should question the results of our research. Unfortunately, we tend to be too quick to accept and easily satisfied with the numbers shown, and are often reluctant to scrutinize them further. Thank you for the enlightenment, brother.