Scan barcode
Reviews
Evidence of the Afterlife: The Science of Near-Death Experiences by Jeffrey Long, Paul Perry
papidoc's review against another edition
3.0
Years ago, I read Dr. Raymond Moody’s books about near death experiences, Life After Life and Reflections on Life After Life. A few others followed, such as Return From Tomorrow and Embraced By The Light. Each of these accounts of near death experiences interested me because they seemed to include many elements that dovetailed with the doctrines of the gospel. However, I was always troubled that not all was consistent with the doctrine.
Recently, I came across another book about NDE’s, and in the course of reading it, have reached some tentative conclusions. This book is Evidence of the Afterlife: The Science of Near Death Experiences. Written by an oncology radiologist with a career-long fascination with NDE’s, the book describes his conclusions following his study of NDE’s over more than two decades. He has collected well over a thousand such accounts, and analyzed them, loosely following scientific methods. Thus, he claims his data and analysis to be the most definitive to date. That may well be true, though I have some real problems with his methods. However, the biggest issue I have is with his assumption that NDE’s should only be examined through the lens of science, and his explicit rejection of religion as a valid lens.
In doing so, he artificially restricts his conclusions about the validity of NDE’s to only two…they are either real (thus indicating the existence of an afterlife) or they are false. However, if one accepts the truth of the gospel, and allows that lens, then two other possibilities emerge. One is that some NDE’s may not be real events, but rather God-given visions, to provide the experience with guidance, comfort, or for some other heavenly purpose. In that event, while they might be valid and important for that individual, such experiences are not necessarily to be considered revelatory for others.
The other possibility is that some NDE’s may be visionary, but inspired by Satan, the enemy of God and of mankind, he who is able to take on the appearance of an angel of light and thus deceive many. Such visionary experiences might be given for the purpose of confusing, distracting, or re-directing the experiencer (and others to whom the NDE might be told) from that which is truth. I see that as a strong likelihood, especially when one considers that Satan’s strongest work is done with falsehoods that are wrapped in truth.
In the end, I suspect that NDE’s found in all three categories: real events, God-given visions, or Satan-inspired deceptions. Thus, while they may be interesting to hear about, and potentially life-changing to experience, like anything else that purports to be about the eternities, their validity should be made a matter of sincere prayer, and accepted only with the validating testimony of the Holy Spirit. And that is not likely to happen for anyone other than the person who experienced it.
Recently, I came across another book about NDE’s, and in the course of reading it, have reached some tentative conclusions. This book is Evidence of the Afterlife: The Science of Near Death Experiences. Written by an oncology radiologist with a career-long fascination with NDE’s, the book describes his conclusions following his study of NDE’s over more than two decades. He has collected well over a thousand such accounts, and analyzed them, loosely following scientific methods. Thus, he claims his data and analysis to be the most definitive to date. That may well be true, though I have some real problems with his methods. However, the biggest issue I have is with his assumption that NDE’s should only be examined through the lens of science, and his explicit rejection of religion as a valid lens.
In doing so, he artificially restricts his conclusions about the validity of NDE’s to only two…they are either real (thus indicating the existence of an afterlife) or they are false. However, if one accepts the truth of the gospel, and allows that lens, then two other possibilities emerge. One is that some NDE’s may not be real events, but rather God-given visions, to provide the experience with guidance, comfort, or for some other heavenly purpose. In that event, while they might be valid and important for that individual, such experiences are not necessarily to be considered revelatory for others.
The other possibility is that some NDE’s may be visionary, but inspired by Satan, the enemy of God and of mankind, he who is able to take on the appearance of an angel of light and thus deceive many. Such visionary experiences might be given for the purpose of confusing, distracting, or re-directing the experiencer (and others to whom the NDE might be told) from that which is truth. I see that as a strong likelihood, especially when one considers that Satan’s strongest work is done with falsehoods that are wrapped in truth.
In the end, I suspect that NDE’s found in all three categories: real events, God-given visions, or Satan-inspired deceptions. Thus, while they may be interesting to hear about, and potentially life-changing to experience, like anything else that purports to be about the eternities, their validity should be made a matter of sincere prayer, and accepted only with the validating testimony of the Holy Spirit. And that is not likely to happen for anyone other than the person who experienced it.
bookfairy99's review against another edition
informative
inspiring
reflective
medium-paced
3.5
As someone who's always been fascinated by near-death experiences (NDEs) and the question of an afterlife, I was excited to dive into "Evidence of the Afterlife" by Dr. Jeffrey Long. While the book is filled with compelling and interesting content, I couldn't help but feel that the writing style left much to be desired. The text comes across as repetitive and lacks the polish of a seasoned author. However, considering that Dr. Long is a researcher and not a professional writer, I was willing to look past these shortcomings to better understand the intriguing subject matter.
The main issue I have with the book is that Dr. Long appears to equate the reality of NDEs with the existence of an afterlife. While he spends a significant amount of time presenting evidence for the genuine nature of NDEs, the leap to conclude that these experiences prove the existence of an afterlife seems too simplistic. While near-death experiences (NDEs) are undeniably real phenomena, shared by people of all cultures and walks of life, this does not prove the existence of an afterlife.
Some of the book's arguments piqued my interest as a skeptic who is willing to be persuaded. The accounts of NDEs and the patterns discovered by Dr. Long can be viewed as evidence of something beyond our current understanding. Unfortunately, the book stops short of offering conclusive evidence for an afterlife. It's possible that NDEs reveal a beautiful and comforting end to our existence, rather than a glimpse into an otherworldly realm.
Overall, "Evidence of the Afterlife" offers a fascinating exploration of NDEs and raises thought-provoking questions about the nature of human consciousness and the possibility of an afterlife. While the writing style and some of the author's conclusions may be less than satisfying, the book is still worth a read for anyone interested in delving deeper into the mysteries of near-death experiences.
unsecuredstation's review against another edition
1.0
I picked up this book from the public library in our city, thinking that it could interesting to read. But, never judge a book by its cover! I am disappointed. I am not so sure how this book became a best seller?! How could his author get all this fame? It doesn't make any sense. I have heavy criticism of this book. And here I go:
This book is basically to showcase a study done by the author (Jefferey Long, MD) who is a radiation oncologist in the US. I was able to find o (zero) peer-reviewed research studies published by him. Yet, he claims to have carried out this study and that it qualifies as undeniable "evidence"! Just judging by his own description of his study, I have the following major concerns about its validity:
1- The definition he used for the near-death experience (NDE) is so non-specific, so fluid, so imprecise, that it cannot ever be consistent across several people, let alone the hundreds that he says responded to his online survey.
2- People who have responded to his online survey have decided to self-identify themselves as ones who had had an NDE at some point. This is a major flaw, as there is absolutely no way we can be sure that they actually identified themselves correctly, or even that they satisfy the non-specific and very broad definition that he put forth.
3- In clinical research, a survey as a methods of gathering data, relies on self-report of whether what these people felt (as part of their claimed NDE) is "real". But that's why they're writing about it in his survey! This is textbook definition of response bias. So his conclusion and boasting that over 95% of those who filled his survey claimed that what they felt was "absolutely real" is straight up BS.
4- Also, a survey (IF the recruits are carefully targeted and IF they fulfill strict criteria; both are non-existent in his survey) is the lowest form of evidence there is. So his survey doesn't even qualify as a valid survey.
5- He lists many of the questions used in his survey. Some of these questions are so poorly written, are very non-specific, to the point where they could be asking several different things at the same time. Yet, the answer options to them was "yes" and "no". How is that even useful?! How is that even remotely 'scientific'?! Especially the questions on whether the respondents had a sense of knowing special knowledge or getting a feeling of purpose. So disappointing for a well-trained clinician to do this.
Overall, it's a descriptive survey that is only doing that, only 'describing' what some people felt when they thought they were having an NDE. Don't get me wrong, I think it's good to do any research with whatever resources available. However, Jefferey Long's conclusions are so baseless and way out-of-wack with the very poor level and strength of evidence he says he collected. The validity of the work he describes is right at the bottom of any scale. Yet, he says in his book that people who report having one of these poorly defined and heterogeneous NDEs are the best source for understanding what what lies at the brink of death and beyond. How could we trust these 'stories' to be of actual NDEs and an evidence of afterlife when, in fact, they fit textbook definitions of psychosis and delirium? They qualify so well into several very well defined and characterized clinical psychiatric disorders.
At the end, where is this "study" published? Who peer-reviewed it? I doubt it was ever peer-reviewed or published anywhere. I also doubt that the author has shared the data he had collected in this survey. If he did, then anyone could explore this data that he collected and then make a more informed reading of this mess.
This book is basically to showcase a study done by the author (Jefferey Long, MD) who is a radiation oncologist in the US. I was able to find o (zero) peer-reviewed research studies published by him. Yet, he claims to have carried out this study and that it qualifies as undeniable "evidence"! Just judging by his own description of his study, I have the following major concerns about its validity:
1- The definition he used for the near-death experience (NDE) is so non-specific, so fluid, so imprecise, that it cannot ever be consistent across several people, let alone the hundreds that he says responded to his online survey.
2- People who have responded to his online survey have decided to self-identify themselves as ones who had had an NDE at some point. This is a major flaw, as there is absolutely no way we can be sure that they actually identified themselves correctly, or even that they satisfy the non-specific and very broad definition that he put forth.
3- In clinical research, a survey as a methods of gathering data, relies on self-report of whether what these people felt (as part of their claimed NDE) is "real". But that's why they're writing about it in his survey! This is textbook definition of response bias. So his conclusion and boasting that over 95% of those who filled his survey claimed that what they felt was "absolutely real" is straight up BS.
4- Also, a survey (IF the recruits are carefully targeted and IF they fulfill strict criteria; both are non-existent in his survey) is the lowest form of evidence there is. So his survey doesn't even qualify as a valid survey.
5- He lists many of the questions used in his survey. Some of these questions are so poorly written, are very non-specific, to the point where they could be asking several different things at the same time. Yet, the answer options to them was "yes" and "no". How is that even useful?! How is that even remotely 'scientific'?! Especially the questions on whether the respondents had a sense of knowing special knowledge or getting a feeling of purpose. So disappointing for a well-trained clinician to do this.
Overall, it's a descriptive survey that is only doing that, only 'describing' what some people felt when they thought they were having an NDE. Don't get me wrong, I think it's good to do any research with whatever resources available. However, Jefferey Long's conclusions are so baseless and way out-of-wack with the very poor level and strength of evidence he says he collected. The validity of the work he describes is right at the bottom of any scale. Yet, he says in his book that people who report having one of these poorly defined and heterogeneous NDEs are the best source for understanding what what lies at the brink of death and beyond. How could we trust these 'stories' to be of actual NDEs and an evidence of afterlife when, in fact, they fit textbook definitions of psychosis and delirium? They qualify so well into several very well defined and characterized clinical psychiatric disorders.
At the end, where is this "study" published? Who peer-reviewed it? I doubt it was ever peer-reviewed or published anywhere. I also doubt that the author has shared the data he had collected in this survey. If he did, then anyone could explore this data that he collected and then make a more informed reading of this mess.
panthor's review against another edition
3.0
Not as scientific as the title would have you believe. However it is an interesting collection of anecdotes.
joliwhite's review against another edition
4.0
This book brought me to tears multiple times and has convinced me I will be reunited with my brother again. My only complaint is the lack of statistical data throughout the book, but I love that there is a place to go to read through the surveys and hope there will be continued research on the subject.
papi's review against another edition
3.0
Years ago, I read Dr. Raymond Moody’s books about near death experiences, Life After Life and Reflections on Life After Life. A few others followed, such as Return From Tomorrow and Embraced By The Light. Each of these accounts of near death experiences interested me because they seemed to include many elements that dovetailed with the doctrines of the gospel. However, I was always troubled that not all was consistent with the doctrine.
Recently, I came across another book about NDE’s, and in the course of reading it, have reached some tentative conclusions. This book is Evidence of the Afterlife: The Science of Near Death Experiences. Written by an oncology radiologist with a career-long fascination with NDE’s, the book describes his conclusions following his study of NDE’s over more than two decades. He has collected well over a thousand such accounts, and analyzed them, loosely following scientific methods. Thus, he claims his data and analysis to be the most definitive to date. That may well be true, though I have some real problems with his methods. However, the biggest issue I have is with his assumption that NDE’s should only be examined through the lens of science, and his explicit rejection of religion as a valid lens.
In doing so, he artificially restricts his conclusions about the validity of NDE’s to only two…they are either real (thus indicating the existence of an afterlife) or they are false. However, if one accepts the truth of the gospel, and allows that lens, then two other possibilities emerge. One is that some NDE’s may not be real events, but rather God-given visions, to provide the experience with guidance, comfort, or for some other heavenly purpose. In that event, while they might be valid and important for that individual, such experiences are not necessarily to be considered revelatory for others.
The other possibility is that some NDE’s may be visionary, but inspired by Satan, the enemy of God and of mankind, he who is able to take on the appearance of an angel of light and thus deceive many. Such visionary experiences might be given for the purpose of confusing, distracting, or re-directing the experiencer (and others to whom the NDE might be told) from that which is truth. I see that as a strong likelihood, especially when one considers that Satan’s strongest work is done with falsehoods that are wrapped in truth.
In the end, I suspect that NDE’s found in all three categories: real events, God-given visions, or Satan-inspired deceptions. Thus, while they may be interesting to hear about, and potentially life-changing to experience, like anything else that purports to be about the eternities, their validity should be made a matter of sincere prayer, and accepted only with the validating testimony of the Holy Spirit. And that is not likely to happen for anyone other than the person who experienced it.
Recently, I came across another book about NDE’s, and in the course of reading it, have reached some tentative conclusions. This book is Evidence of the Afterlife: The Science of Near Death Experiences. Written by an oncology radiologist with a career-long fascination with NDE’s, the book describes his conclusions following his study of NDE’s over more than two decades. He has collected well over a thousand such accounts, and analyzed them, loosely following scientific methods. Thus, he claims his data and analysis to be the most definitive to date. That may well be true, though I have some real problems with his methods. However, the biggest issue I have is with his assumption that NDE’s should only be examined through the lens of science, and his explicit rejection of religion as a valid lens.
In doing so, he artificially restricts his conclusions about the validity of NDE’s to only two…they are either real (thus indicating the existence of an afterlife) or they are false. However, if one accepts the truth of the gospel, and allows that lens, then two other possibilities emerge. One is that some NDE’s may not be real events, but rather God-given visions, to provide the experience with guidance, comfort, or for some other heavenly purpose. In that event, while they might be valid and important for that individual, such experiences are not necessarily to be considered revelatory for others.
The other possibility is that some NDE’s may be visionary, but inspired by Satan, the enemy of God and of mankind, he who is able to take on the appearance of an angel of light and thus deceive many. Such visionary experiences might be given for the purpose of confusing, distracting, or re-directing the experiencer (and others to whom the NDE might be told) from that which is truth. I see that as a strong likelihood, especially when one considers that Satan’s strongest work is done with falsehoods that are wrapped in truth.
In the end, I suspect that NDE’s found in all three categories: real events, God-given visions, or Satan-inspired deceptions. Thus, while they may be interesting to hear about, and potentially life-changing to experience, like anything else that purports to be about the eternities, their validity should be made a matter of sincere prayer, and accepted only with the validating testimony of the Holy Spirit. And that is not likely to happen for anyone other than the person who experienced it.
majean's review against another edition
4.0
At times repetitive, but a solid book that raises many questions. I'm glad I read it.
faresa's review
1.0
I picked up this book from the public library in our city, thinking that it could interesting to read. But, never judge a book by its cover! I am disappointed. I am not so sure how this book became a best seller?! How could his author get all this fame? It doesn't make any sense. I have heavy criticism of this book. And here I go:
This book is basically to showcase a study done by the author (Jefferey Long, MD) who is a radiation oncologist in the US. I was able to find o (zero) peer-reviewed research studies published by him. Yet, he claims to have carried out this study and that it qualifies as undeniable "evidence"! Just judging by his own description of his study, I have the following major concerns about its validity:
1- The definition he used for the near-death experience (NDE) is so non-specific, so fluid, so imprecise, that it cannot ever be consistent across several people, let alone the hundreds that he says responded to his online survey.
2- People who have responded to his online survey have decided to self-identify themselves as ones who had had an NDE at some point. This is a major flaw, as there is absolutely no way we can be sure that they actually identified themselves correctly, or even that they satisfy the non-specific and very broad definition that he put forth.
3- In clinical research, a survey as a methods of gathering data, relies on self-report of whether what these people felt (as part of their claimed NDE) is "real". But that's why they're writing about it in his survey! This is textbook definition of response bias. So his conclusion and boasting that over 95% of those who filled his survey claimed that what they felt was "absolutely real" is straight up BS.
4- Also, a survey (IF the recruits are carefully targeted and IF they fulfill strict criteria; both are non-existent in his survey) is the lowest form of evidence there is. So his survey doesn't even qualify as a valid survey.
5- He lists many of the questions used in his survey. Some of these questions are so poorly written, are very non-specific, to the point where they could be asking several different things at the same time. Yet, the answer options to them was "yes" and "no". How is that even useful?! How is that even remotely 'scientific'?! Especially the questions on whether the respondents had a sense of knowing special knowledge or getting a feeling of purpose. So disappointing for a well-trained clinician to do this.
Overall, it's a descriptive survey that is only doing that, only 'describing' what some people felt when they thought they were having an NDE. Don't get me wrong, I think it's good to do any research with whatever resources available. However, Jefferey Long's conclusions are so baseless and way out-of-wack with the very poor level and strength of evidence he says he collected. The validity of the work he describes is right at the bottom of any scale. Yet, he says in his book that people who report having one of these poorly defined and heterogeneous NDEs are the best source for understanding what what lies at the brink of death and beyond. How could we trust these 'stories' to be of actual NDEs and an evidence of afterlife when, in fact, they fit textbook definitions of psychosis and delirium? They qualify so well into several very well defined and characterized clinical psychiatric disorders.
At the end, where is this "study" published? Who peer-reviewed it? I doubt it was ever peer-reviewed or published anywhere. I also doubt that the author has shared the data he had collected in this survey. If he did, then anyone could explore this data that he collected and then make a more informed reading of this mess.
This book is basically to showcase a study done by the author (Jefferey Long, MD) who is a radiation oncologist in the US. I was able to find o (zero) peer-reviewed research studies published by him. Yet, he claims to have carried out this study and that it qualifies as undeniable "evidence"! Just judging by his own description of his study, I have the following major concerns about its validity:
1- The definition he used for the near-death experience (NDE) is so non-specific, so fluid, so imprecise, that it cannot ever be consistent across several people, let alone the hundreds that he says responded to his online survey.
2- People who have responded to his online survey have decided to self-identify themselves as ones who had had an NDE at some point. This is a major flaw, as there is absolutely no way we can be sure that they actually identified themselves correctly, or even that they satisfy the non-specific and very broad definition that he put forth.
3- In clinical research, a survey as a methods of gathering data, relies on self-report of whether what these people felt (as part of their claimed NDE) is "real". But that's why they're writing about it in his survey! This is textbook definition of response bias. So his conclusion and boasting that over 95% of those who filled his survey claimed that what they felt was "absolutely real" is straight up BS.
4- Also, a survey (IF the recruits are carefully targeted and IF they fulfill strict criteria; both are non-existent in his survey) is the lowest form of evidence there is. So his survey doesn't even qualify as a valid survey.
5- He lists many of the questions used in his survey. Some of these questions are so poorly written, are very non-specific, to the point where they could be asking several different things at the same time. Yet, the answer options to them was "yes" and "no". How is that even useful?! How is that even remotely 'scientific'?! Especially the questions on whether the respondents had a sense of knowing special knowledge or getting a feeling of purpose. So disappointing for a well-trained clinician to do this.
Overall, it's a descriptive survey that is only doing that, only 'describing' what some people felt when they thought they were having an NDE. Don't get me wrong, I think it's good to do any research with whatever resources available. However, Jefferey Long's conclusions are so baseless and way out-of-wack with the very poor level and strength of evidence he says he collected. The validity of the work he describes is right at the bottom of any scale. Yet, he says in his book that people who report having one of these poorly defined and heterogeneous NDEs are the best source for understanding what what lies at the brink of death and beyond. How could we trust these 'stories' to be of actual NDEs and an evidence of afterlife when, in fact, they fit textbook definitions of psychosis and delirium? They qualify so well into several very well defined and characterized clinical psychiatric disorders.
At the end, where is this "study" published? Who peer-reviewed it? I doubt it was ever peer-reviewed or published anywhere. I also doubt that the author has shared the data he had collected in this survey. If he did, then anyone could explore this data that he collected and then make a more informed reading of this mess.
More...