The question of what happens after death remains a minefield, especially when it cuts across so many areas, scientific, spiritual, personal. So-called near-death experiences (NDEs) typically occur in situations where a person’s vital prognosis is clearly in jeopardy, such as during cardiac arrest or severe obstetric complications: a brain deprived of oxygen or a heart that stops are often at the origin of similar stories: exit from the body, tunnel, light, etc. These testimonies are not anecdotal, they contain recurring elements observed in thousands of testimonies around the world.
The Washington Post takes the example of a Virginia nurse who, after suffering heart failure following childbirth, claimed to have seen herself floating above her body and passing through a soothing tunnel, accompanied by intense emotions and spiritual sensations. The experiment ended when“a powerful voice said to him: “Not yet””before she comes back to life.
For the first time, an international team of researchers attempted to identify possible biological explanations in a model called NEPTUNE (Neurophysiological Evolutionary Psychological Theory Understanding Near-death Experience). Detailed in Nature Reviews Neurology, this framework suggests that NDEs result from a cascade of neurophysiological and psychological events triggered by extreme conditions on the brain such as reduced oxygen and increased carbon dioxide during cardiac arrest. A brain region such as the temporoparietal crossroads could be at the origin of out-of-body experiences.
A radical critique of “simple biology”
This model strives to integrate data from various disciplines: observations of the brain during states close to death, but also studies carried out on animals or even phenomena induced by psychedelic substances. According to its authors, this is an evolving work, expected to be refined as research progresses.
But NEPTUNE is the subject of debate in scientific circles. Two researchers from the University of Virginia published a scathing critique, saying that this model alone cannot account for the richness of the stories. In particular, they reject the idea that hallucinations induced by electrical stimulation are comparable to the complex visions described by some patients, such as detailed sensory perceptions of people and places. They also criticize the authors of the model for minimizing the direct testimony of patients and medical staff, who sometimes report consistent objective details.
The controversy touches a sensitive point: are the accounts of NDE simply consequences of a mistreated brain, or do they reveal something which would go beyond our current scientific knowledge? Some researchers, while remaining skeptical, recognize the importance of these subjective experiences in advancing the understanding of consciousness itself.
There is currently no scientific proof of the survival of consciousness after death. The majority of contemporary approaches consider NDEs as cognitive phenomena linked to brain disturbances in critical situations. While patient stories are valuable, they remain difficult to analyze due to memory and context bias.
