Response to "Critique of 'A prospectively studied near-death experience with corroborated out-of-body perceptions and unexplained healing'".
Journal of Near-Death Studies 2013 DOI: 10.17514/jnds-2013-32-1-p15-36 (opens in new tab)
Study at a glance
AI-extracted from the abstract| Characteristics | Theoretical or philosophical paper Peer reviewed |
|---|---|
| Topics | Near-death experience |
| Key points | 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.