Near-death experiences observed and studied today are interesting to me not just because of what they tell us about the individuals who have these experiences, but because of the light they potentially shed on older historical accounts of mystical experiences in general. For instance, in a class I took last semester with Professor Parsons, we studied a book written by the 16th century Spanish Saint, Teresa of Avila. In the book, Saint Teresa repeatedly mentions that when a holy person reaches the level of contemplation that allows for contact with the divine, that person often appears to be dead—that is, their bodily senses no longer seem to be picking up information from the outside world. Many other accounts like this exist throughout history and across many different religious traditions, such as Buddhist monks who enter so deep into meditation that they no longer have a perceivable pulse and indeed appear dead to onlookers. Similarly, ascetics of various religious traditions often undergo means of self-mortification for the purpose of inducing an “ego-death,” so as to give life to a higher self that is more in touch with the divine. Perhaps in such cases, even when the person is not physiologically near death, he or she may be psychologically near death, which ultimately amounts to the same response. In other words, it may be possible to self-induce NDEs by making the mind believe that the ego—biologically the most important part of the psyche, and therefore the most crucial to physiological survival—is at the brink of death, thus tricking the mind into a perceived imminence of bodily death. Is it possible that the religious experiences of many mystics have actually been NDEs that were self-induced through similar means? How much religious wisdom can be traced back in some way to an NDE?
The Blog for Medicine and Religion 202, Spring 2014
I have had an extreme interest in NDE’s for a long time, and during high school I spent a large amount of time researching them and reading different experiences. I think a really interesting aspect to bring to the argument of mechanism versus vitalism is the (highly controversial) theory advanced and proposed by Dr. Rick Strassman that during near death experiences, a naturally-occuring compound called dimethyltryptamine (a neurotransmitter and psychedelic compound found in many organisms like mammals and plants) is released in massive amounts in the brain from the pineal gland, causing hallucination. There is also evidence that dimethyltryptamine, or DMT, is released in small amounts in the bloodstream during REM sleep, which is theorized to play a role in the production of dreams. A study was done in the 1990’s by Dr. Rick Strassman in which 400 doses of DMT was administered to 60 volunteers. Over half the volunteers reported having experiences extremely similar to NDE’s, including tunneling, profound encounters with “higher dimension” beings, feelings of bliss, self-transforming geometric patterns, etc. Many people who were administered the DMT also felt as though their perception on life had changed, similar to many people who experience NDE’s.
While I think this is very interesting, there is still a lot of evidence missing for the argument. Dr. Strassman could not provide a mechanism for how this would occur or an evolutionary advantage it might give. Additionally, I do not think that just because a compound can cause an experience, that the experience itself is completely mechanic. I think that if a spiritual encounter were to occur, the only way for that to happen, would be in the terms of our reality. Thus, perhaps the release of DMT is a gateway into our brains experience higher consciousness or to be aware of higher consciousness.
I believe a hundred years is an infinitesimally small segment of time when looking at the whole of the universe. There is a plenty of time to refine definitions and substantiate theories, of course it may not occur next year or even in the next thousand years, but it will most definitely occur. In addition if the definition of a mechanistic universe precludes the existence of the divine then that is a flawed definition. The purpose of mechanism is logical explanation to how the universe functions. Yet, science, as of yet, cannot sufficiently explain all observed phenomena. Enter vitalism, a place holder. Everything that cannot be explained mechanistically represents a void in science, in which resides the divine/god/spirituality. As science grows the void shrinks. The void represents the infinite, which will continually shrink but will never disappear. God will be relegated to a smaller and smaller space in the collective consciousness, but the concept will not die. If you shoot an arrow from a bow it will reach a target in a certain amount of time. However if you keep dividing the distance between the arrow and the target by half, it will never reach the target. The distance between the point of the arrow and target is an apt metaphor for the divine void. Although ever shrinking, it will always be present. Therefore, I cannot conceive of a universe that is not both mechanistic and vitalistic. They are both ever present concepts, and if the divine void were to disappear, then we would not have killed god, but would have assumed his role.
With the vagueness and variability religion possesses, NDEs have always been very intriguing to me. Both Graham and Allen’s posts were very interesting in giving me a new perspective on this strange phenomenon. With something so unexplainable, it’s hard for me to have a strong position on which side to choose between vitalism or mechanism. However, fortunately or unfortunately, I tend to put a lot of trust into what others have to say. I can see how someone who considers them self religious may experience an NDE and automatically contribute the characteristics (out of body experience, bright white light, intense feelings of love and peacefulness, etc..) to a Godly encounter. However, how could I tell someone what they did or did not experience? I decided to do some research on near death experiencers who had no religious beliefs at all to see if their stories were similar. I found a post of an Atheist professor who experienced his NDE due to a perforation of the duodenum. His experience was different than many we have studied due to the horrifying beginning. Instead of being led down a path of light and beauty, the path he walks along gets continually darker. He is beaten and left distraught until he hears a voice telling him to pray to God, which then turns his whole experience around along with his life following the NDE. Whether you attribute NDEs to the supernatural or scientific design, the story is short, readable, and provides a unique first hand account I believe is worth taking a glimpse at. He also wrote a book called My Descent Into Death: A Second Chance at Life. Here’s the link for the quick blog: http://whitecrowbooks.com/features/page/atheist_professors_near-death_experience_in_hell_left_him_changed.
Caroline, consider that you might not have to choose between mechanism and vitalism. Both positions have strengths and weaknesses and neither paradigm fits all situations. By the way, the Howard Storm story is a great. Do you find it believable and why?
I completely agree with Allen, in that surely religious claims have been made using NDE’s as sources of inspiration. I believe that NDE’s are evidence of a divine hand in the creation of the universe, although my idea of divine may not be in accord with most people. I am a firm believer is mechanism over vitalism, and I am sure that NDE’s will eventually be adequately explained by science, but that does not make all religious interpretation void. Why should a positive response to death develop in a species? That makes no sense evolutionarily, and I can think of no reproductive advantage to dying happily, so why has biology genetically modified itself over the course of billions of years to enjoy its last few moments of existence? My religious explanation could be called ‘the kind universe’ hypothesis. As no logical reason for an NDE is apparent, it could be seen as a bi-product of a benevolent universe. This universe is engineered with kindness in mind. The big bang was kind enough to make life possible; organisms have evolved to value kindness as an essential quality (humans being the highest developed organism); emotions have developed to lament the loss of life and to enjoy the life we have been given. Everywhere one looks he or she encounters acts of kindness, and I believe that NDE’s are another manifestation of this beautiful life. Religions of all sorts comfort their members with knowledge that there is a power greater than themselves watching over their world. Here is evidence that kindness is as coded into the universe as newton’s laws of physics; for me that is a signal of a higher spirit concerned that life should enjoy every breath it takes, from first to very last.
Graham’s response begs the question as to how a firm belief in mechanism can be reconciled with the existence of a divine force in the universe. I recognize this may due to my basic understanding of mechanism, which is that nothing, including a divine entity, exists after death, whereas vitalism dictates the occurrence of some sort of event(s) after death.
I do not see NDEs as a genetically positive response to death, either, but for a more simple reason: by definition, the phenomenon prevents the individual from returning from death. The poll on the first day of class clearly shows that if there is some sort of positive approach to death, it is not genetically dominant in the population. I see the pursuit of NDEs as a more primitive reaction to achieve a normally unattainable state of euphoria. A more low-key analogy would be a devout runner’s adherence to a workout schedule to achieve the positive effects of an endorphin rush, along with the other health benefits. The claim for religious experience could be brain remapping itself in response to the deluge of hormones, the individual grasping for some sort of explanation and resorting to religion, as did earlier civilizations did to explain simple phenomena such as the orbit of the planets or their creation, or some combination of both. Like Graham said, NDEs will eventually be explained by science, just like other phenomena that were once unexplained.
You are right, Linh. Divine force does not exist in a mechanistic universe – by definition.
Graham, dying happy might not be the most important point – fear of death, existential angst, is stressful and stress is significantly correlated with heart disease, cancer, metabolic syndrome and a host of auto-immune disorders. Is it possible that believing in a happy afterlife reduces stress and promotes longevity? And your certainly that NDE’s will be adequately explained by science is an interesting statement of faith. Science has yet to prove a mechanism for gravity (beyond the hypothetical graviton) and the wave/particle theory of light is not definitive. One would think that after hundred of years science would have solved these basic riddles, but it has not. Perhaps next year…
Consider Allen’s ideas here in light of the chapter we are reading for Dr. Deconick’s and the importance of narratives in conjunction with cognitive studies.