Response to "Critique of 'A prospectively studied near-death experience with corroborated out-of-body perceptions and unexplained healing'".
Journal of Near-Death Studies January 1, 2013 DOI: 10.17514/jnds-2013-32-1-p15-36 (opens in new tab) via Semantic Scholar
Summary
AI-generated from the abstractThe author responds to a critique of a 2006 article about a near-death experience that involved veridical components and an unexplained healing. Addressing each point in order, the author finds that most criticisms were already covered in prior publications, while the exchange also allows clarification of previously undetailed points. The author concludes that this professional dialogue highlights the challenges of conducting methodologically rigorous prospective research on near-death experiences.
Study at a glance
| Characteristics | Theoretical or philosophical paper Peer reviewed |
|---|---|
| Keywords | Psychology |
| Key finding | Argues that the exchange underscores the difficulty of conducting methodologically sound prospective research on near-death experiences. |
Abstract
Abstract: In this article, I respond to a critique by Michael Rush of a 2006 article from this Journal in which I and my co-authors described a case of a near-death experience with veridical components and an inexplicable healing. I address each point from the critique in the order in which it was raised. Overall, I found most of the criticism to have been points I had already addressed in previous publications, and the critique also provided my an opportunity to clarify a few points I had not previously detailed. For me, this professional exchange has served to underscore the difficulty of conducting methodologically sound prospective research on near-death experiences.