Psychology of Religion and Spirituality © 2010 American Psychological Association
2010, Vol. 2, No. 2, 117–118 1941-1022/10/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0019123
Near-Death Experiences: Out of Body and Out of Mind?
Steven Jay Lynn, Colleen Cleere, and
Michelle Accardi
State University of New York at Binghamton
In 1992, physicist Victor Stegner voiced his
concerns about a “new myth” that is “burrowing
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
its way into modern thinking” that “quantum
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
mechanics has ruled invalid the materialistic,
reductionist view of the universe . . . . Now, ma-
terialism is replaced by a new spiritualism and
reductionism is cast aside by a new holism”
(Stegner, 1992, p. 13). Almost 20 years later,
Greyson (2010) has argued that complex con-
sciousness (i.e., near-death experiences, or
NDEs) under conditions such as cardiac arrest
and general anesthesia challenge “materialist
reductionism” and require a revised psychology
anchored in 21st-century quantum physics that
includes consciousness in its conceptual formu-
lation. Unfortunately, Greyson fails to specify
how quantum mechanics or a holistic approach
can (a) enlighten our understanding of NDEs
and (b) pave a foundation for a “new scientific
conceptualization of the interface between mind
and brain (Greyson, 2010, p. 43).”
We agree with Greyson that NDEs are fasci-
nating phenomena, and we further recognize
that quantum mechanics undergirds chemistry,
and so surely plays some as-yet- undefined role
in mental processes. However, we sharply dis-
agree that it is necessary to “expand models of
the mind” on the basis of quantum mechanics
“before we can progress in our understanding of
consciousness and the brain (Greyson, 2010,
p. 43).” Astonishing developments in our knowl-
edge of ordinary consciousness, sleep, and altered
states of consciousness have unfolded over the
years with absolutely no connection to quantum
Steven Jay Lynn, Colleen Cleere, and Michelle Accardi,
State University of New York at Binghamton; and Elisa
Krackow, West Virginia University.
We thank Richard Ehrlich, senior physicist at Cornell
University, New York, for his thoughtful comments on
quantum mechanics.
Correspondence concerning this article should be ad-
dressed to Steven Jay Lynn, State University of New York
at Binghamton, Binghamton, NY 13902. E-mail:
stevenlynn100@gmail.com
117
Elisa Krackow
West Virginia University
mechanics. Moreover, entirely plausible, if incom-
plete, materialistic and reductionist explanations
of phenomena associated with NDEs (e.g., seeing
a light or life review) have been tendered, granting
the possibility that consciousness can persist, even
during cardiac arrest and anesthesia (Alkire,
Hudetz, & Tononi, 2008; Blackmore, 2007;
Woerlee, 2005).
We do not wish to duel with Greyson regard-
ing if and when the brain is “completely dis-
abled” during NDEs, but instead argue that the
future is bright for understanding NDEs in
terms of the everyday workings of the brain,
and suggest important avenues of inquiry. Out-
of-body experiences (OBEs), which are inti-
mately related to NDEs, are being studied in the
laboratory (e.g., Ehrsson, 2007; Leggenhager,
Tadi, Metzinger, & Blanke, 2007) and are com-
ing to be understood in terms of the scrambling
of the senses (e.g., touch and vision) when our
usual experience of our physical body becomes
disrupted, while scientists are pinning down the
brain location of OBEs by stimulating the ves-
tibular cortex, the superior temporal gyrus, and
the place where the brain’s right temporal
and parietal lobes join (Blanke & Thut, 2007;
Blanke, Ortigue, Landis, & Seeck, 2002;
Blanke & Thut, 2007; Cheyne & Girard, 2009;
De Ridder, Van Laere, Dupont, Menovsky, &
Van de Heyning, 2007; Persinger, 2001). Sleep
paralysis and sleep transition phenomena, more
generally, also promise to advance our under-
standing of how shifts in consciousness and
arousal can produce NDE-like experiences
(Nelson, Mattingly, & Schmitt, 2007).
To better understand NDEs, we believe that
studies pertinent to the following domains are
worthwhile: cultural scripts, beliefs, and ex-
pectations regarding NDEs; fantasy prone-
ness, absorption, suggestibility, false memo-
ries, and after-the-fact reconstructions of
events; responses to drugs such as ketamine;
the ability to identify objects remotely during
a NDE; visual imagery and processing of
 118 LYNN, CLEERE, ACCARDI, AND KRACKOW
information related to self-perception; anes-
thesia procedures (e.g., incomplete anesthesia
and loss of thalamacoritcal connectivity); oxy-
gen deprivation and blood chemistry; and the
link between minimal consciousness and a di-
versity of subjective experiences. After all, a
reasonably complete understanding of complex
phenomena often demands explicating the in-
terplay of multiple contributing variables and
processes, and we strongly suspect that this is
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
the case with near-death experiences.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Yet even if an elegant, comprehensive ac-
count of NDEs proves elusive in the near term,
we contend that Greyson’s arguments, and the
evidence he marshalls, provide no warrant to
either abandon a “reductionist” approach or in-
corporate quantum mechanics into models of
consciousness. Indeed, there is no consensus
that consciousness is required for quantum me-
chanics to work: The laws of physics would
apply in a world of robots. Reductionism in
physics provides the pieces that, when they fail
to cohere, inspire syntheses and new paradigms,
and we predict that this will hold true for the
study of NDEs. Meanwhile, the burden of proof
rests squarely on Greyson to mount or recount
convincing evidence for the extraordinary claim
that a holistic, nonmaterialstic explanation must
be at the heart of understanding near-death
experiences.
References
Alkire, M. T., Hudetz, A., & Tononi, G. (2008).
Consciousness and anesthesia. Science, 322, 876 –
880.
Blackmore, S. (2007). Near death experiences: In or
out-of-body? In B. Farha & M. Shermer (Eds.),
Paranormal claims: A critical analysis (pp. 59 –
72). Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
Blanke, O., Ortigue, S., Landis, T., & Seeck, M.
(2002). Stimulating illusory own-body percep-
tions. Nature, 419, 269 –270.
Blanke, O., & Thut, G. (2007). Inducing out-of-body
experiences. In S. Della Sala (Ed.), Tall tales about
the mind and brain: Separating fact from fiction
(pp. 425– 439). Oxford, England: Oxford Univer-
sity Press.
Cheyne, J. A., & Girard, T. A. (2009). The body
unbound: Vestibular-motor hallucinations and out-
of-body experiences. Cortex, 45(2), 201–215.
De Ridder, D., Van Laere, K., Dupont, P., Menovsky,
T., & Van de Heyning, P. (2007). Visualizing
out-of-body experience in the brain. New England
Journal of Medicine, 357, 1829 –1833.
Ehrsson, H. H. (2007). The experimental induction of
out-of-body experiences. Science, 317, 1048.
Greyson, B. (2010). Implications of near-death expe-
riences for a post-materialist psychology. Psychol-
ogy of Religion and Spirituality, 2, 37– 45.
Leggenhager, B., Tadi, T., Metzinger, T., & Blanke, O.
(2007). Video ergo sum: Manipulating bodily self-
consciousness. Science, 317, 1096 –1099.
Nelson, K. R., Mattingly, M., & Schmitt, F. A.
(2007). Out-of-body experience and arousal. Neu-
rology, 88, 794 –795.
Persinger, M. M. (2001). The neuropsychiatry of
paranormal experiences. Neuropsychiatric Prac-
tice and Opinion, 13, 521–522.
Stegner, V. J. (1992). The myth of quantum con-
sciousness. Humanist, 53(3), 13–15.
Woerlee, G. M. (2005). Mortal minds: The biology of
near death experiences. Amherst, NY: Prometheus
Books.
Received February 4, 2010
Accepted February 4, 2010 䡲