Rejoinder to "Response to 'Critique of "A prospectively studied near-death experience with corroborated out-of-body perceptions and unexplained healing"'".
Michael J. Rush
Journal of Near-Death Studies 2013 DOI: 10.17514/jnds-2013-32-1-p37-41. (opens in new tab)
Study at a glance
AI-extracted from the abstract| Characteristics | Commentary Peer reviewed |
|---|---|
| Topics | Near-death experience |
| Key points | Rush continues his critique of Sartori's prospectively studied near-death experience case, arguing against her defense of the reported out-of-body perceptions and unexplained healing. The exchange centers on how such anecdotal evidence should be interpreted. |
Abstract
Michael J. Rush discusses Penny Sartori's response to his critiques of her article "A Prospectively Studied Near-Death Experience with Corroborated Out-of-Body Perceptions and Unexplained Healing."