Thread: NDEs of Children

They also havn't been exposed to what older people have with the stories.

It's obviously real, I just don't think you're seeing heaven or god when you see the light, it be your brain going all dopey.

If they are able to talk and draw, then I'd say that they were exposed enough to replicate results similar to those of the adults. You have some data and you have your brain going all dopey, perhaps that's why the results are what they are.
All these stories remind me of my first WILD. I saw this light and other fancy ornaments. I was thinking "Omg, what's going on! This is so scary!", but I didn't feel this fear. There were no worries, it was very peaceful and nice.

Originally Posted by Idolfan

It's obviously real, I just don't think you're seeing heaven or god when you see the light, it be your brain going all dopey.

That's my opinion on all forms of NDE.

Originally Posted by Bonsay

If they are able to talk and draw, then I'd say that they were exposed enough to replicate results similar to those of the adults. You have some data and you have your brain going all dopey, perhaps that's why the results are what they are.

that is a good question. but i have a few objections. the writings are most often written by the child as he/she gets older. and the drawings are done by children who are younger. some as young as three or four. they just draw what they experienced. the question is how did they get these ideas about life after death when they are not yet old enough to understand the religion they are being raised in. Some ideas that are common in adult and child NDEs are not common ideas with religion either. A lot of children said they talked with “people made out of light”. But they talked “in their heads”......while adults describe this as they talked using telepathy with “beings made out of light”.

and a near death experience is not an everyday thing. A lot of skeptics assert that they are caused by stress or lack of oxygen to the brain. in DR Van Lommels study. out of 344 hand picked patients who went into cardiac arrest only 18% reported NDEs. of that 18% only about 12% reported "Deep" NDEs. if they were caused simply by stress a larger percentage should have reported them

Why does only 12% tell of NDE's and the rest nothing? kinda makes you wonder if it's the brain with certain people then "death" itself.

Here's my take on the situation:

I don't think the issue is whether NDE is a real experience. It obviously is. The point of interest is exactly what the experience is. Angelic in nature? Spiritual in nature? External in nature? Purely internal in nature?

I think the answer is that it's purely internal in nature; a happening in the brain. I find it funny that it's often considered to be a rejection of the entire concept to state that all real Human knowledge indicates NDEs to be nothing more than a struggling brain state. The terms "spiritual", "angelic", "seeing God", etc... are only interpretations based on the (emotional) impact felt by the one who had the experience and not an objective analysis.

I don't believe that at all necessarily excludes the acceptance of NDE's existence. It only questions what the mechanics of the experience is. The only real controversy- in my opinion - is whether it's internal or external in nature.

It's also easy to falsely conclude that NDE and actual death can be directly compared. In an NDE, you are not dead. You may be very close but, you're not actually dead. I mention this only to point out that it's also easy to think that NDE somehow proves or disproves continuation or cessation of the person's 'being' after death. I don't think it proves anything either way.

Originally Posted by Oneironaught

I don't think the issue is whether NDE is a real experience. It obviously is. The point of interest is exactly what the experience is. Angelic in nature? Spiritual in nature? External in nature? Purely internal in nature?

I very much agree with you there. And I think you worded it very well.

Originally Posted by Oneironaught

I think the answer is that it's purely internal in nature; a happening in the brain. I find it funny that it's often considered to be a rejection of the entire concept to state that all real Human knowledge indicates NDEs to be nothing more than a struggling brain state. The terms "spiritual", "angelic", "seeing God", etc... are only interpretations based on the (emotional) impact felt by the one who had the experience and not an objective analysis.

That is an interesting way to look at it. But what do you mean by the terms are only interpretations that are not an objective analysis?

Originally Posted by Oneironaught

The only real controversy- in my opinion - is whether it's internal or external in nature.

That is exactly what Dr. Sam Parnia’s new study is trying to figure out. He has been looking at the OBE aspect to test if it is internal or external.
Below is a topic with a link that brings you to an interview of Dr. Parnia’s study. Its pretty interesting
http://www.dreamviews.com/community/...ad.php?t=44225

Originally Posted by Oneironaught

It's also easy to falsely conclude that NDE and actual death can be directly compared. In an NDE, you are not dead. You may be very close but, you're not actually dead. I mention this only to point out that it's also easy to think that NDE somehow proves or disproves continuation or cessation of the person's 'being' after death. I don't think it proves anything either way.

That is another tough question that demands more research into the field. I will admit that there is no single NDE case that has been proven to happen when the patient is completely brain dead. Although I think there are a few cases that come close and provide insight.

There have been cases of people who view their resuscitation however, I in no way consider this proof. But it is interesting evidence. and it takes the first steps of research into the field


from DR Jeff Long

A number of experiencers describe out-of-body experiences (OBEs). These experiences frequently include visualization of their body from a vantage point outside their body. Much less commonly reported are visualizations of earthly events geographically far removed from their body. 1. Michael Sabom, M.D, conducted an excellent study of OBE among experiencers. Dr. Sabom identified a group of thirty-two patients who had a cardiac arrest, experienced a NDE, and visualized their own resuscitation efforts during the OBE stage of their NDE.
He found a group of twenty-three patients who had a cardiac arrest and did not have a NDE. Both groups were asked to describe their resuscitation. The NDE group was uniformly accurate, including correctly recalling readings on medical machines outside their potential line of vision. Twenty of the twenty-three patients who did not have a NDE were highly inaccurate in describing their resuscitation. This is verifiable and potentially reproducible validation of the OBE component of the NDE. Other researchers should attempt to replicate this important study. Anecdotal accounts continue to surface of experiencers with OBE experiences involving visualization far geographically removed from their body. Formal study of these accounts would be an important future area of research.

Originally Posted by Matt5678

That is an interesting way to look at it. But what do you mean by the terms are only interpretations that are not an objective analysis?

I mean that the experience is being interpreted by the subject himself, that he is under the experience's influence. And therefor, his judgement of its reality is clouded and biased by how real it feels. When some one says they had an encounter with external beings (angels, Gods, deceased loved ones, etc...) during an NDE, they are describing the experience as it appeared to them. They aren't describing the experience as it occurred in terms of physiology. We may well find that the two perspectives reveal wildly different stories; that the perceived experience is not what's really going on.

It's easy to falsely interpret the nature of the event from such a subjected, emotionally involved perspective.

Originally Posted by Oneironaught

I mean that the experience is being interpreted by the subject himself, that he is under the experience's influence. And therefor, his judgement of its reality is clouded and biased by how real it feels. When some one says they had an encounter with external beings (angels, Gods, deceased loved ones, etc...) during an NDE, they are describing the experience as it appeared to them.

well, this brings to mind a few ideas. i dont know if they are really objections but.... yes, afterwards people interpret their experience in a way in which they feel comfortable. But many of the features are the same throughout the world and the features seem to appear in the same order. Now you could say that this is only because 95% of adults have been exposed to religion for a good portion of their lives and influences how they see and perceive things..ok.. but this brings us back to the subject at hand, NDEs of Children. These children are arriving at the same conclusions as adults but they did not possess or understand the adult knowledge that would influence their conclusions. They are un-biased. the children are being influenced by the experience itself, but its odd how when they come out of this they have ideas and insight that no 3-6 year old would normally know or have the capacity to grasp.

Originally Posted by Oneironaught

It's easy to falsely interpret the nature of the event from such a subjected, emotionally involved perspective.

very true, and i think i understand were their coming from

Originally Posted by Matt5678

But many of the features are the same throughout the world and the features seem to appear in the same order.

True. And that shows that it almost certainly is a real experience. And, in my opinion, it also shows that the experience is not religious in nature but, that it can be interpreted as such by the one who has the experience.