#774: Learnings from 1,000+ Near-Death Experiences — Dr. Bruce Greyson, University of Virginia

Hello boys and girls, ladies and germs. This is Tim Ferriss. Welcome to another episode of The Tim Ferriss Show. It is my job to interview world-class performers from all different disciplines to deconstruct how they do what they do. Now, in this case, I wouldn't recommend replicating or attempting to replicate what some of the subjects, patients, case studies, have experienced, which is namely dying and then being revived in some capacity. So, don't do that. But my guest today is Bruce Greyson MD. He is the Chester F. Carlson Professor Emeritus

of Psychiatry and Neurobehavioral Sciences and Director Emeritus of the Division of Perceptual Studies at the University of Virginia, where he has practiced in taught psychiatry and carried out research since 1995. He is also a distinguished life fellow of the American Psychiatric Association, and his most recent book is After a Doctor Explorers What Near-Death Experiences Reveal About Life and Beyond. He has studied, documented more than a thousand near-death experiences, and what made him appealing to me as a guest with this incredible

incredibly unusual terrain is that he was raised with a secular, what we could call, rational, materialist worldview. So, with that introduction, I hope you enjoy this very wide-ranging and unusual conversation, but first, just a few words from the sponsors who make this possible.

I have been fascinated by the microbiome and probiotics, as well as prebiotics for decades, but products never quite live up to the hype. I've tried so many dozens and there are a host of problems. Now, things are starting to change, and that includes this episode's sponsor, Seeds DSO1 Daily Symbiotic.

I've just out that this product, Seeds DSO1, was recommended to me many months ago by a PhD microbiologist, so I started using it well before their team ever reached out to me about sponsorship, which is kind of ideal, because I used it unbitten, so to speak, came in fresh. Since then, it has become a daily staple, and one of the few supplements I travel with. I have it in a suitcase literally about ten feet from me right now. It goes with me.

I've always been very skeptical of most probiotics due to lack of science behind them, and the fact that many do not survive digestion. To begin with, many of them are shipped dead, DOA. But after incorporating two capsules of Seeds DSO1 into my morning routine, I have noticed improved digestion, and improved overall health.

It seems to be a bunch of different cascading effects. Based on some reports, I'm hoping it will also have an effect on my lipid profile, but that is definitely TBD. So why is Seeds DSO1 so effective? What makes it different? For one, it is a 2-in-1 probiotic and prebiotic formulated with 24 clinically and scientifically studied strains that have systemic benefits in and beyond the gut.

That's all well and good, but if the probiotic strains don't make it to the right place, in other words, your colon, they are not as effective. So Seed developed a proprietary capsule and capsule delivery system that survives digestion and delivers a precision release of the live and viable probiotics to the colon, which is exactly where you want them to go to do.

The work I've been impressed with Seeds dedication to science-backed engineering with completed gold standard trials that have been subjected to peer review and published in leading scientific journals. They standard you very rarely see from companies who develop supplements. If you've ever thought about probiotics, but haven't known where to start, this is my current vote for great gut health. You can start here at cost less than $2 a day, that is the DSO1.

And now you can get 25% off your first month with code 25 Tim, and that is 25% off of your first month of Seeds DSO1 at Seed.com slash Tim using code 25 Tim all put together. That's Seed.com slash Tim, and if you forget it, you will see the coupon code on that page. One more time, Seed.com slash Tim code 25 Tim. As many of you know, for the last few years, I've been sleeping on a midnight locks mattress from today's sponsor.

He looks sleep. I also have one in the guest bedroom downstairs and feedback from friends has always been fantastic. Kind of over the top, to be honest. I mean, they frequently say, it's the best night of sleep they've had in ages. What kind of mattresses? What do you do? What's the magic juju? It's something they comment on without any prompting from me whatsoever.

I also recently had a chance to test the Helix Sunset Elite in a new guest bedroom, which I sometimes sleep in. And I picked it for its very soft, but supportive feel to help with some lower back pain that I've had. Sunset Elite delivers exceptional comfort while putting the right support in the right spots. It is made with five tailored foam layers, including a base layer with full perimeter zoned lumbar support, right where I need it.

And middle layers with premium foam and micro coils that create a soft, contouring feel, which also means if I feel like I want to sleep on my side, I can do that without worrying about other aches and pains I might create. And with a luxurious pillow top for pressure relief, I look forward to nesting into that bed every night that I use it. The best part, of course, is that it helps me wake up feeling fully rested with a back that feels supple instead of stiff.

That is the name of the game for me these days. Helix offers a 100 night sleep trial fast free shipping and a 15 year warranty. So check it all out. Get 20% off of all mattress orders by going to Helix Sleep.com slash Tim. For 20% off all mattress orders. I can run flat out for a half mile before my hands start shaking. I'm a cyber nettie organism living this show with metal windows. Dr. Grayson, thank you for making the time today. It's very nice to meet you.

Thank you, Tom, delighted to be here with you today. So I thought we would start more or less at the beginning in terms of chronology of your life when we're not going to do an ABCD linear recap of your whole life because that would be an epic multi day affair. But perhaps you could tell us as a setting of the table a bit about your childhood. How are you raised? What did the environment foster in terms of thinking in you frameworks for understanding the world that type of thing?

Sure, Tim. Well, I was raised in a scientific non-religious household. My father was a chemist and for us, he was concerned, which is what you get. There's nothing beyond the physical. So that's how I was raised being a scientist. He stimulated me a desire to gather information. And I often participate in some of his experiments. He had a lab set up in his basement.

He also taught me though that if you study things that we pretty much understand already, you can make little inroads here and there about five points. If you really want to make some impact, he's to study things we don't understand at all. And it gave me examples of that. So I grew up with that idea that I wanted to be a scientist and discover new data and try to figure out what's going on with it. Did you have at that point an innate fear of death?

These seem like some questions that might be important to touch upon before we get into the meat and potatoes of what we'll dive into shortly. Was that inbuilt or experienced by you? Actually, the answer is no. I didn't have any fear of death. We certainly had family relatives that died. And as far as I could tell, when you dive, that's the end. What's to be afraid of there? Lights out. Lights out.

What attracted you to psychiatry? What was your path to psychiatry from the experiments in the basement? What led you there? Well, when I went through medical school, I had no idea what I wanted to do. I kind of thought I'd be a family doctor. But I found that when I did my psychiatry rotations, there were so many more unanswered questions. So many things that we had no idea how to explain. Much more with the brain than with the kidneys or the heart or the lungs.

I thought, this is where I need to go to look at what's going on on the brain to have these thoughts and ideas and feelings. So I went in that direction. Were there any particular conditions that fascinated you? This is predating the NDE investigations. But were there any particular conditions? I found myself really drawn towards psychoses, people who had hallucinations and delusions and just didn't think the way the rest of us do.

Now most of the things that psychiatry is dealing with are common everyday things like anxiety, depression, which everyone has to some extent. But I really was fascinated by the more extreme conditions. schizophrenia, and manic depressivleness. People are just had totally different views of the world than I did. So I suppose this is as good a time as any to segue into some of the what many would consider.

I think most would consider stranger terrain, even beyond psychoses, although that's a Pandora's box we could certainly get into quite separately. And I suppose that the stain on the tie and the story surrounding that may make some sense to tell. Would you mind sharing that with the audience? Sure. I went through college and medical school with a strict, two-other stick mindset that the physical world is all there is.

And in one of my first weeks as a psychiatric intern, I was asked to see a patient who was in the emergency room with an apparent overdose. I was in the cafeteria half in my dinner when this call came through. And being a green intern, I was startled by the beeper going off. And I dropped my fork and spilled some spaghetti sauce on my tie. So again, being a new intern, I didn't want to embarrass myself.

So I put on a white lap coat and buttoned it up so nobody could see it. I went down to see the patient and she was totally unconscious. I could not revive her. But there was her roommate who had brought her in who was in another room, about 50 yards down the hall. So I left the patient. There was a sitter there with her as happens with all suicidal patients. And I went down to see the roommate.

I spent about 20 minutes talking to the roommate, trying to understand what was going on with the patient, what stresses did she have, what drugs she might have taken for an overdose and so forth. It was a very hot Virginia late summer night. And I was starting to sweat in that room. There's no air conditioning back in the 70s. So I unbuttoned my coat so I wouldn't sweat so much, inadvertently exposing the stain on my tie.

When I finished talking to the roommate, I stood up to leave and saw that was open so I quickly buttoned it up again, said goodbye and sat around her way. Then I went back to see the patient and she was still unconscious. I confirmed with the sitter who was with her that she had not awakened at all during the time I was gone. She was admitted to the intensive care unit because she did have some cardiac insubility because of the overdose.

And when I saw her the next morning when she had awakened, she was just barely awake. I went into a room. I said, so-so, I'm Dr. Grayson from psychiatry. And she opened one eye and said, I know who you are. I'm a beautiful last night. Met just blow me away because I knew she was asleep at best and unconscious. I don't know how she could have known that.

So I said to her, I'm surprised I thought you were out cold when I saw you last night. Then she opened her eye again and said, not in my room. I saw you talking to Susan down the hall. That made no sense to be at all. She was lying there in the gurney. The only way she could have done that is if she had left her body and come down and that made no sense.

You are your body. How can you leave it? So I didn't do it. I thought, is she pulling my leg? What's going on here? She saw that I was confused. And then she started telling me about the conversation I had with her roommate. What questions I asked, what Susan's answers were. And then finally said, and you had a red sand on your tie. That just blew me away. I didn't know what to make of this.

I was really getting flustered at this point. I thought with a nurse of somehow colluding with her to trick this poor intern. But no one knew about the stain except the roommate. So I realized that I was having trouble keeping my composure then. But my job was to deal with her mental status, not mine. I was thinking to the back and just dealt with her about what made you take the overdose.

What are you thinking about suicide now and so forth. I thought, well, I'll think about this other stuff later on. So she was admitted to the psychiatric unit and I was a busy intern. I didn't have time to think about this stuff. I didn't dare tell anybody. They think I was crazy. So I pushed, pushed it on the side and just didn't think about it for a while. But it was very, very emotionally upsetting to me to think this bizarre thing happened, but it can't happen. It can't have happened.

There must be some other answer to it. It just sat there in the back of my mind for about five years until I was out now on the faculty at the University of Virginia. And we had a young intern join us, Raymond Moody, who wrote a book called Life After Life in which he gave us the term near death experiences and described what they were. I had never heard of this type of thing before. And when he described it to me, I realized that's what this patient was talking about.

She was talking about in a near-death situation, leaving her body, seeing things accurately from another location. And I thought, well, I need to understand this. So I started collecting cases and it wasn't hard to do. These are very, very common phenomena, but nobody talks about them. If you start asking patients who have been close to death, they will tell you about them. And here I am 50 years later, so I'll try to understand them.

Did you expect it was going to last five decades, or did you think this was going to be a short project of collecting case studies? I assume to him that in a couple years I have a simple physiological explanation for this. And that would maybe satisfy and be the end of it. But the more I learned about them, the harder they seemed to understand. So I think I'm more comfortable with not knowing all the answers.

So just a clarifying question on the case study of this particular woman who had overdosed attempted suicide, was that, I guess, based on all you know now, or what people would consider a near-death experience in NDE, or was it some close cousin? Because presumably she was not intubated and flatlined at the point that you were talking to her roommate. She was alive, but either comatose or sleep, or otherwise cognitively offline. Right. How do you think about that?

Well, they were measuring her heart function, her EKG, and her heart had not stopped. She was having erratic erythmias, erratic, forms of her heart beat. So I don't know how close to death she was. I mean, it's always hard to tell how close to death someone is, whether she had a real near-death experience or not. I don't know because I didn't investigate it. At that time, I didn't know anything about near-death experiences. I didn't know her questions to ask.

So I just wanted to get out of my life and push out of the way. So looking back on it, it's certainly not proof of anything, except how unnerving this was to me emotionally to have this happen. So I suppose that as part of sort of investigating the overall context for thinking about these things, it might be useful to talk about, and since I'm sure out of order in terms of the questions you might usually get asked, but the NDE scale.

I believe you developed, maybe it was in collaboration with colleagues, is the high internal consistency, and maybe you can just describe these things, split half reliability. That one I'm actually not familiar with.

And then test re-test reliability, which is seemingly a critical component of this. And the reason I bring all this up as the crow flies doesn't really need to fly hops about 20 feet away. I have an encyclopedia Britannicus set that was bought by Richard Feynman when he was I believe 42. And I'm going to butcher this paraphrase of a quote of his, but in effect, it is most important not to fool yourself and you're the easiest person to fool, I believe is one of his quotes, right.

Hence we have the scientific method, the structured way of investigating and testing hypotheses. So could you speak to the scale. And we're going to get to other questions around the perhaps common criticisms or forms of skepticism, speaking to the biological underpinnings, but let's talk about the scale first, because I'm sure a lot of people listening would think to themselves, well, number one, there have to be a lot of people who just make up stories.

And they want to sell books and they do this, this and this, not in your case. I'm just saying those who've experienced or claimed who've experienced and see an X Y or Z. And then there are people who would love to misrepresent and become a Messiah of this that and the other thing. So how do you make sure you're not fooling yourself or being fooled? Could you just perhaps describe the NDE scale or speak to that and whatever way makes sense to you.

Well, back in the late 1970s, after people had read Raymond Modi's book, several psychologists and physicians started getting interested in studying this phenomenon. So he assembled a meeting at the University of Virginia with about two dozen of these people who researchers who wanted to study it and tried to agree on how to do that.

And it turned out that everybody had a different idea about what a new GeoTeXperience was. Depending on their background, some thought it was an out-of-body experience. Some thought it was a sense of feeling a bliss. Some thought it was a communion with God, also a different interpretation as people had.

And he didn't agree on what should be included as part of a new GeoTeXperience. So I surveyed a large number of researchers who had published about this and asked them to give me a list of the most common features you see in a new GeoTeXperience.

I had some 80 features, which is ridiculous. So I took that list and I gave the list to a bunch of near-death experiencers and said, which ones of these do you think are really important in defining a new GeoTeXperience? And they would have lived down a bit.

And I took the Whittledown list and gave it back to the researchers and said, which ones of these do you think are really important ones? And they would have lived down again about back and forth between the researchers and the experiencers until I had a consistent list of 16 features that they all agreed with the important parts of a near-death experience.

And they included changes in your thought processes, taking faster and clearer than ever before, having your past flash before you, straw feelings of emotions, usually joy and bliss, and a sense of being unconditionally loved by brilliant light, not always. Sometimes there's fear also. So we developed the scale of these 16 items. And if you stat for the standard of deciding which ones of these phenomena are new to the experiences which ones are not.

It's been, now translated into more than 20 different languages, has been used in thousands of studies around the world. There have been attempts to refine it, to improve it. There are things we know now that I didn't know back then, and people have tried to add things to it. But basically all the additions don't make much of a difference. You still identify the same experiences being NDE's with or without them. So that's where it was. That's where the scale came from.

Could you speak to some of the elements that might help you separate out for lack of a better way to phrase it, true experiencers versus people who have false positives or who want to tell a story? Well, I actually published a paper about false positives, where we had people who claimed we have a new-jith experience, but did not score very highly on that scale.

And we wanted to look at why they think they have new-jith experiences. And you were right when you said before that some people are making things up. They want the publicity. They want to be held as Messiah's. That's true. But I think there was small minority of people who claimed to have new-jith experiences. And they usually very easy to identify by what they do with the experience.

If you immediately go on the talk surfered and talk to Tim Ferriss, and I'll let people like that. And we want to brag about how enlightened you are now. We say, well, let's someone else study those. I'm gonna argue with those. But the majority of people who I think were false positives are people who had some less intense form of mental illness.

If people are blatantly psychotic, we don't include them in the studies. But there are people who have personality disorders, who seem on the surface to be perfectly fine, but have exaggerations of our traits that make them function differently in the world. And some do have this incredible need to get confirmation of what's happening to them. They feel different. They don't know why.

So they hear about new-jith experiences and think, maybe that's why I'm different. Maybe you had a new-jith experience. What we're gonna do in this conversation, and I'm just scratching my own edge from a curiosity perspective, but we're gonna bounce all over the place I like to frame that as a feature, not a bug, but it's gonna be pretty non-linear.

So I want to zoom in and out from the clinical, skeptical side to the hopefully, and I think we'll get to quite a few of these, but examples that could be corroborated in some fashion. And those may overlap with those that are described as out of body experiences. They might not, and we'll probably come back to that term as well. But could you tell the story of the, tell me if this is enough of a cue, the red MGB?

Many people in a new-jith experience say that they encountered deceased loved ones in the experience. And that can easily be explained as wishful thinking, expectation. You think you're dying, and you would love to see your grandmother once more. She comes to you, and there's no way to prove or disprove that. However, in some cases, the person having the new-jith experience, and capture someone who had died, but nobody yet knew they had died.

So that can't be dismissed as expectation and wishful thinking. This is not a new phenomenon. I'm plenty of the elder wrote about a case like this in the first century, GAD, but we're hearing about a lot of them now. About 12 years ago, I wrote a paper that had 30 different cases from recent years. Jack was one of those. He had an experience, actually, he was in South Africa back in the 70s.

And he was a young technician at that time, and had very serious pneumonia, and a visually stock breathing had to be resuscitated. So he was admitted to the hospital with a severe pneumonia, and he had one nurse who was constantly working with him as his primary nurse, a young, pretty girl about his age. He flew a lot with her, with her what he could. And one day she told him she's going to be taking the long weekend off, and there'd be other nurses substituting for her.

So he wished her well, and she went off. And over the weekend, while she was gone, he had another respiratory arrest where he couldn't breathe. He had to be resuscitated, and during that time, he had a near death experience. And he told me that he was in this beautiful pastoral scene, and there out of the woods came his nurse, a new to walking towards him. And he was stunned because he was in his different world, what's she doing there? So he said, you know, what are you doing here?

And she said, you know, Jack, you can't stay here with me. I want you to go back, and I want you to find my parents and tell them that I love them very much, and I'm sorry, I wrecked the red MGB. He didn't know what to make of that, but she turned around and went back into the woods, and then he woke up later in his hospital bed. Now he tells me that back in the 70s, there were very few MGBs in South Africa, and he had never seen one.

When the first nurse came into his room, he started to tell her about his experience, and seeing his nurse Anita. She got very upset and ran out of the room. It turned out that she had taken the weekend off to celebrate her 21st birthday, and her parents had surprised her with the gift of her red MGB. She got very sighted, hopped in the car, and took off for a test drive, and crashed into a telephone pole and died instantly, just a few hours before his near-death experience.

I don't see any way he could have known or wanted or expected her to have an accident and die, and certainly in a way he could have known how she died, and yet he did. And we've got lots of other cases like this, they're called Peaky and Darian cases, based on a book that was published in 1800s with cases like these, where people encounter deceased individuals who were not known to be dead. Now I don't know how to explain those.

Now just to put my skeptics hat on, I could say, well, if I were Jack, was a Jack, let's just say it's Jack, that would make one hell of a story if there wasn't a third party to independently verify it with. But there are other cases, and for people listening, we're going to come back to some of the common questions, I would say, forms of discussion around these related to possible biological mechanisms or lack thereof.

We're going to come back to that in a second, but there are then cases that are seemingly characteristically quite different, and perhaps can be, and I'd be curious to know if this has been done or not, but verified with third parties. And one that comes to mind that I've heard you discuss is related to the surgeon flapping like a bird, and I was hoping that you could give a description of that.

Particular case study, before we get to that, how many near death experiences have you documented, studied, or otherwise read about, put into the archives yourself? How many instances would you say you have encountered one or another? I've got slightly more than a thousand in my database at the University of Virginia, where we have validators as much as we can, that they were in fact close to death, and this is what happened to them.

I've talked to many more people about their near death experience that happened, because it wasn't confident that they really fit the criteria for being in the study, but it's really much more common than you might think it was, because people don't talk about these things. You mentioned people wanting the publicity of this, that is actually maybe more true now, but back in the 70s and 80s, nobody wanted to talk about these things.

If you talk about things you got ridiculed, you got referred to a psychiatrist, you were called Crazy, you were shunned by people you knew, both materialists and religious folks, they didn't want to hear about these things. So people did not talk about these events. And what of this surgeon flapping like a bird?

This was a fellow Allen in his mid 50s, who was a van driver, in his out-and-ass rounds one day, and he had chest pain, and he had enough to stop his rounds and drive to the emergency room, and they did some evaluations and found that he had four arteries to his heart that were blocked, and they rushed him to the emergency room for urgent quadruple bypass surgery.

So he's lying on the table, fully unconscious, the dream so from so forth, and he tells me that in the middle of the operation, he rose up out of his body and looked down and saw the surgeon's operating on, and he saw the chief surgeon who he hadn't met before, flapping the arms like he was trying to fly, and he demonstrated for me.

And at that point, I laughed, so I thought, this is obviously hallucination, doctors don't do that, but he insisted that I check with the doctor, he said, this really happened to ask him. So he told me lots of other things about his new type of experience, but that's the one that I was able to verify. So I talked to a surgeon who actually had been trained in Japan, and he said, well, yes, I did do that.

And I said, I'm going to have a little bit of letting my assistants start the procedure while I put on my sterile gown and gloves and watch my hands and so forth. I'm going to go into the operating room and watch them for a while, because I don't want to risk touching anything with my sterile hands now. I point things out to them with my elbows, and it point to things out of the set, just the way I was saying he was trying to fly.

The doctor, that's done that, I've been a doctor for more than 50 years now, I've never seen anyone do that. So it's kind of an idiosugumographic thing. Is there any way I'll go to seeing that while he was totally anesthetized, he has heart, was open. I don't think there's any way he could have seen that, and yet he did.

All right, so so many questions, and let's start with the question of how rational material is skeptics, and that's not meant as a criticism of those people at all might try to explain this. They might say it is a lack of oxygen or diminishing amount of oxygen. It might be a cascade of neurotransmitters that are released when A, B or C happens.

It might be the introduction of drugs. I certainly know when I've had surgeries, if I had versed or God knows what else introduced to my bloodstream, some very strange things happen. Although I haven't experienced the type of thing you're describing when I've been anesthetized. How do you respond to those, or how do you think about those explanations? I'm sympathetic with them, you know, I started out as a materialist skeptic. After 50 years, I'm still skeptical.

I'm no longer a materialist, I think. That's kind of a dead end when it comes to explaining a near-death experience is another phenomenon like this. When I started out, I assumed, okay, we'll look at things like heart rate, oxygen level, drugs given, and so forth. And each thing we tried to study turned out not to explain anything.

For example, the most obvious thing was the lack of oxygen because no matter how you come close to death, that's the last common denominator you're going to lose oxygen to the brain. Well, you actually study this. What you find is that people who have near-death experiences actually have a higher oxygen concentration than people in similar situations who don't have a near-death experience. Could you say more about that? How do we know this, or how do we surmise that?

They don't measure what's going on in the brain, but they measure in the peripheral blood system how much oxygen is flowing through. With the pulse oxymeter or something like that. Yes, in a hospital setting. They also can draw blood and measure it more directly than the pulse ox. What they find is that when they draw blood from people who are in a near-death situation, those who have a near-death experience have a higher oxygen level than those who don't.

So what that means is that lack of oxygen is not causing the experience. In fact, it seems to be inhibited in some way. And what that means may be that many people have a near-death experience. But if you're lacking oxygen, you can't remember it later on. And if you have good enough oxygen, you remember it later on. So it may be related more to the memory of the experience than the experience itself.

Likewise, with people giving drugs as their approaching death, the more drugs you've given, the less likely you are to report a near-death experience later. Now, there are some drugs that can mimic parts of a near-death experience. They're not drugs that are given to dying patients, but things like ketamine, various psychedelic drugs, people using psilocybin now. And they can produce things that mimic in some ways some features of near-death experiences. They don't produce the whole phenomenon.

They don't, for example, reliably have the blissful feelings, and they certainly don't have the accurate, out-of-body perceptions that many near-death experiences have. I shall say that Jam Holden at the University of New York, Texas, studied about 100 cases of people who claimed to be out of their bodies and seeing things. And what she found when she sought third-party corroboration was that in 92 of the 100, they were completely accurate.

In six cases, they were partly accurate and partly inaccurate. Only one or two were completely wrong. So the vast majority were actually corroborated by other people. What are some other examples of hospital setting? And part of the reason I mentioned that specifically is that you have multiple credible witnesses in some cases, I would imagine.

Yes. Which makes it interesting, because you could independently, at least in theory, verify, confirm various occurrences while a patient was sedated, suffering from cardiac arrest or otherwise. What are some examples that come to mind that you think are the most defensible in those environments or otherwise? But where you have the ability to independently confirm or have denied, x, y, or z that happen?

The ones that come to mind are the ones where people see deceased individuals who no one knew had died yet. I can give you more examples of that and they're offering corroborated by other people. And also people will claim to leave their bodies and see things from an adabotic perspective that they shouldn't have known about. And we're not talking about seeing things like, oh, I saw the doctor in green scrubs, or I saw a dust on the lap. Something you would expect.

Talk about really unusual things like the nurse had mismatched shoelaces, you know, things he wouldn't expect, or the doctor floppings wings. We have corroboration for a lot of these cases. What is the most fertile ground from a pathology perspective for near death experiences? For instance, cardiac arrest or cardiologists, those most likely to hear reports of NDE's. And then the secondary question is, does the manner of death influence the nature of the NDE reported?

Let me take those second one first. As these just wanted to answer, the manner of death by and large does not affect whether you're going to have any a death experience or what kind you're going to have. Now there are some exceptions to that. For example, if you are intoxicated at the time, you're less likely to have an experience. And if you do have one, it's going to be fuzzier and harder to remember.

Most of the research has been done with cardiac arrest patients. And that's done because number one, you've got a large population of people who we can document. And we're close to death. And number two, many of those people have no or very few complicating physiological problems with them. If you study people who were on dialysis, they got many other problems going on that can complicate what's going on on the brain.

But there were a lot of people who have a sudden cardiac arrest who are otherwise fairly healthy. So they're kind of a clean population to work with. So for that reason, most of the research has been done with cardiac arrest patients, but the vast majority of people who spontaneously come to me and say, let me tell you about my experience did not have cardiac arrests. I say maybe 20 or 30 percent have had a cardiac arrest in a hard stop.

A lot of them are accidents or injuries or so forth. We have a large collection of people who were injured in combat who haven't used his experiences. He blew cell from great heights. This is our thing. He blew drowned. Just a quick thanks to one of our sponsors and we'll be right back to the show. This episode is brought to you by Wealthfront. There is a lot happening in the US and global economies right now. A lot.

That's an understatement. Are we in a recession? Is it a bear market? What's going to happen with inflation? So many questions, so few answers. I can't tell the future. Nobody can. But I can tell you about a great place to earn more on your savings. And that's Wealthfront. Wealthfront is an app that helps you save and invest your money. And right now you can earn 4.5 percent APY. That's the annual percentage yield with the Wealthfront Cash Account.

That's nearly 10 times the national average according to FDIC.gov. So why wait, earn 4.5 percent on your cash today. Plus it's up to $8 million in FDIC insurance through partner banks. And when you open an account today, you'll get an extra $50 bonus with a deposit of $500 or more. There are already more than a million people using Wealthfront to save more, earn more, and build long-term wealth.

So why wait, visit Wealthfront.com slash Tim to get started. That's Wealthfront.com slash Tim. This was a paid endorsement by Wealthfront. Has the nature of reported NDE's changed over time or does it very widely across cultures? And the reason I ask is that for instance, the observation of the placebo effect and how it manifests has changed quite a lot over time.

There's actually a great piece in Wired Magazine about this. Depending on culture, depending on how widespread readings and reporting about the placebo effect is in terms of strengthening or decreasing the strength of placebo effect.

And you see examples of this also in reports of say in some cases alien abduction or UFO encounters, etc. And there's sort of a homogenizing of the experience or reporting of it in some cases that one could attribute to mass media coverage discussions on podcasts and so on. So how does that apply or not apply to reports of NDE's?

In terms of knowledge about new death experience, whether it affects what you want to say, we've done some research looking at people who reported their new death experiences to us before Raymond Moody published his book in 1975 when nobody knew what these things were.

Working at the University of Virginia, I had access to the files of Ian Steepinson who had been there for many, many years collecting unusual phenomena. And he had maybe 50 of these cases. They weren't called new death experiences. Some were called deathbed visions, some were called out of body experiences, some were called apparitions.

When you look at them, they were just like the near death experiences we call today. So I collected 20 of those that we had enough information about and then matched them on age, sex, religious belief, so forth with 20 recent cases that I studied. We compared what phenomena they reported and what things they didn't. And what we found is that before Moody told us what an interesting experience was like when no one had heard of these things, people reported the same things they report now.

So knowing about a near death experience does not affect whether you're going to have one or report it. And he also asked about culture and that's an interesting point because most new death experiences start by saying, well, there's already a word to describe it. There aren't any words in this. I can't tell you about it. I say, you know, great, tell me about it. They use metaphors often I'll say, well, then I saw this God-like figure.

I'm saying, God, I don't know what else to call it, but it's not that God I was taught about in church. It was much different from that. But this all loving, all-knowing entity, whatever it was, and what you hear from people in different cultures is based on what cultural or religious metaphors they have available to them.

For example, people in Christian cultures will say that they may have seen God or Jesus, people from Hindu and Buddhist countries don't use those words. They may say they met a young dude, a messenger from Rama, but they may say they just saw this white light.

Also, the tunnel, we have tunnels in the US. So when people say, I went through this long, dark, enclosed space, they will say, tunnel, people of third world countries don't use that word. They may talk about going into a well, or into a cave.

I interviewed one fellow who was a truck driver who said, then I got sucked into this long tailpipe. So whatever metaphor comes readily to them is what they used to describe the phenomenon. If you look at the actual phenomenon they're reporting, it's the same all around the world. In fact, we can find cases from back in ancient Egypt and Rome, in Greece, that have the same phenomenon we talk about today. But the metaphors they use to describe them are different from culture to culture.

Or you meet a scientist outside of your field of study whose well intention, they're not coming at you in some type of malicious or cynical way. They're genuinely curious, because I think really good scientists are open-minded, but they also ask for proof or they look to demonstrate proof or disprove hypotheses.

What are some of the, if you had to steal man against a non-materialist explanation for NDE, is there any, if you had to pick them, compelling ways to interrogate this experience from a materialist perspective?

I'm not happy with the lack of evidence we have for some of these things. I'm still looking for it. I went into this thinking there's going to be a simple physiological explanation. We haven't found it. It's been 50 years and we haven't found any explanation yet. That doesn't mean we won't. So we're still looking. We have some technologies now that can study the brain in ways we didn't have before.

We have very sophisticated neuroimaging, we have much better computer algorithms for analyzing EEGs, and we have a wider range of psychedelic drugs to use to try to replicate parts of the experience in some ways.

We've looked going on in physiological research now that was not available 50 years ago, and we may someday have a physiological answer to explain new teeth experiences, but let me give you two questions. One is that if you find something that is always correlated with the near-death experience, brain, weight, activity, or a chemical that doesn't mean it's causing the experience.

For example, right now, people are listening to us, and there's electrical activity in parts of their brain that process hearing. It always happens when they hear us. This part of the brain always lights up. That doesn't mean that electrical activity is causing our voices. It's just a reflection of it.

So when you find these physiological incompetence of a near-death experience, you're finding perhaps the mechanism for it, but not the cause of it. The second question was that even though I'm a skeptic and part of me still wishes we could find a physiological explanation. I'm still looking.

I need to remember that this is what has been called promissory materialism. We don't have the answer yet, but we will someday. That's a perfectly fine, philosophical position. It is not a scientific position because it can never be disproven.

You can always say, well, we haven't got the answer yet, but we'll get it in 50 years. You can never disprove it. It's not scientific. That's a scientific way of dealing with things. Promissory materialism is not the way to go. We need to deal with what we have right now and how we interpret what we have right now.

I think most people who study Neurotrism experiences whether they're spiritualists or materialists or neurophysiologists or philosophers, they agree on the phenomena. They don't agree on the interpretation of it, of what's causing it and what its ultimate meaning is. I think that's fine. That's not where I am. I'm not a philosopher. I'm an interested in the ultimate cause of the meaning of it. I'm actually a clinician.

What interests me most about Neurotrism experiences is how they affect people's lives and what people do with the experience. That's the same regardless of what's causing it. With its hallucination or a spiritual experience, it affects people in the same way. That's what I think what interests me most.

We'll probably come back to this, but I'll just maybe as a teaser for folks. Please fact check me if I get any in this wrong. It seems like some of the common after effects for those who experience NDEs are increased altruism, a feeling of connectedness. If they had a profession involving some degree of violence, for instance, not necessarily ill intention, but law enforcement. If they were in the mafia, I know there's a case of this.

There are no longer capable or willing to perform those jobs. Those who have attempted suicide and have the experience of an NDE counterintuitively are less suicidal after the fact. So I'll provide those as teasers. But just to scratch my own edge, I'm going to pick up on a thread from quite a few minutes ago where I was asking about possible differences in reported NDEs. Do children and adults report the same phenomenon, obviously using different metaphor?

Yeah, for trying to convey the ineffable perhaps. Do they differ in any notable way? They don't really differ. The one difference is that children don't have the elaborate life review that most adults do. They have a lot of different forms.

They also tend to have as many deceased relatives that they might encounter. They have some. But you're more likely to hear from children encountering a deceased pet, a dog or a cat. But by and large, people who have studied children's neodeth experiences find the same phenomenon. They often have difficulty even more than adults do in putting into words. So they often ask the children to draw what happened and they produce artwork to explain the neodeth experience.

You're mentioning new tooling, new equipment and technological capabilities that we have, whether that be FMRI or some type of advanced brain imaging, the use of computers, algorithms, certainly AI at some point, if not already to analyze EEG, KG data and so on. How might you use something like brain imaging if you could design a study because presumably if someone's about to flat line, you're not going to slide them into an FMRI machine because the clinicians would not be able to get to them.

So with that mean you would be putting someone into say an FMRI and then doing your best to simulate an NDE with exogenous compounds such as psychedelics or otherwise, how might you use the brain imaging?

People have studied brain imaging with psychedelic drugs. We used to think that psychedelic work by stimulating the brain to hallucinate and what these studies have shown is that the psychedelic trips that are associated with more elaborate mystical experiences are associated with less brain activity and less coordination among different parts of the brain. As if the brain is sort of getting pushed out of the way by these drugs, allowing whatever it is to come in, all this mystical experience.

People have tried to look at brain function during a cardiac arrest. It is not easy. Several papers have been published in leading neuroscience journals claiming they have done this, but they have not done that. For example, once they was published of people who were comatose and on life support and they said it was happening in the brain when they stopped the artificial ventilation and what they found was that there was a change in the brain function when they did that.

It was reported as an increase in gamma activity. It was actually not. All the brain waves were decreased when they stopped the ventilation, but the gamma waves were decreased less than the alpha beta and delta. It looked like there was more relatively speaking of the gamma. It was actually less than it was before. But these people were not dead. They also reported heart function during this time.

When they were reporting these changes in brain waves, the people's hearts were still beating. They were still having a normal sign as where the normal heart beat. When the heart did stop, they didn't continue doing the EEG. You couldn't continue to see what's going on in the brain after they actually died. But they reported as electromagnetic activity in the brain in dying patients. They weren't dying. The artificial aspiration was stopped, but their hearts were still beating.

Similarly, there were other studies like this where they claimed to be reporting on dying patients. They were not dying patients. They were people who were approaching death. There was a study done in Michigan where they sacrificed rats and measured what's going on in the brains when they do that. They reported a 30 second burst of activity after their hearts stopped. That's what they said they found. It actually wasn't a burst.

If you look at the traces they give you, it was a slight increase. But far less than the grains were showing before they sacrificed them. So it was a tiny blip. It wasn't a surge, like they said it was. Furthermore, if they anesthetized the rats, they didn't show this at all. Obviously, people have NDE's Neutrath Experiences under deep anesthesia. So that's not the same phenomenon.

There were several other things that were untypical of Neutrath Experiences. For example, every single one of the rats they tested had this burst of activity. But if you ask people who come close to death only about 10 or 20% have Neutrath Experiences. And probably most significant, they didn't bother to interview the rats to see what they were experiencing. I will mention one research who has actually measured EEGs brainwaves during cardiac arrest.

This is San Parnayet at NYU. When you process it, you compress the heart, compress the heart compressions for a while, and then you stop and give them a break to see whether they spontaneously breathe or not. And then you continue it again, or they're shocking them with electricity. And then you stop and see what's happened.

And he measured the brainwaves during the period when they stopped thinking, this is going to tell us what's going on. Well, I'm not sure it is because it's only for a few seconds that you're stopping. And their body is still suffering from the shock of the electricity or the chest compressions. Furthermore, he reported some increase in several different wavelengths of brain activity in about half the patients.

He also reported that there were some six patients who reported Neutrath Experiences. And he said, well, obviously the increased brain activity is causing the Neutrath Experiences. But if you look at his data, the six who had the Neutrath Experiences did not have the increase in brainwaves. And those who had the Neutrath Increasing Brainwaves did not report Neutrath Experiences. So I'm not sure if we learn anything from that.

Alright, so I'm going to ask you to make some sort of theoretical leaps to answer the next few questions. But first, because I have to ask this, when people see or claim to have seen deceased relatives, how and I don't know if you have this level of granularity in the reports, how old are those deceased relatives? Are they last they saw them because presumably some of these people who died would have had a slow decline right with neurodegenerative disease and so on.

So do they appear much younger? Is there any pattern in the reports whatsoever in terms of the age that these people seem to be when they are observed? There was a pattern, but again, I need to fall back on the fact that most people say they weren't any words to describe it. So when you ask them to describe what they saw, you're describing what the brain interpreted what they saw.

And most people say that they saw that a deceased loved one at the prime with their lives when they were young and healthy, not when they were dying. I have had some people say, I didn't really see a human figure. I just saw my grandmother. Well, how did you know she grandmother? I felt her vibrations. I knew it was her. It was her essence. So they may have just seen this blob of light and knew by the way it felt to them. This is grandma.

There's no way of validating this type of thing. It's just their impression. All right. Let me ask a sort of tactical, practical question and then we'll get into this stranger stuff. Sure. If you had, let's say there's someone listening and they're like, OK, I'm not sure I want my name on it, but as an anonymous donor, I'm willing to give Dr. Grayson some some of money or maybe some secret agent at the NIH is like, you know what? I know it'll liberate some funds. Right.

What studies would you like to design and see done that mean they don't need to be specifically related to NDE's, but if they are, I suppose that be more germane to the conversation any types of studies that you would love to see performed related to this. I can answer that from my personal perspective, which is not what I like to see the field do. Sure.

What I like to see the field do is what they're doing right now, looking at all of the different possibilities, looking across cultural comparisons, looking at neurophysiological changes, the types of things they're doing now, looking at other phenomena that seem to mimic part of the NDE like psychedelic drugs, but that's not where I am right now. I'm near in the end of my career and I'm falling back on, what does it all mean?

For me, what that means is has it affect people's lives. So I would like to see more research into the practical applications of new death experiences. We've done some studies now with new death experiences, which say they needed help, regressing to a quote in normal life after a new death experience. And we've surveyed them about what did they need help with, what was so disturbing about the experience or its after effects.

What type of help did you seek, what type of help did you receive, what type of practitioner did you go to, is a chiroidist, a doctor, a spiritual healer, a pastoral counselor, and what types of help were actually helpful and which ones were not helpful. And we're finding some interesting findings from that. We're also surveying physicians about their attitudes towards new death experiences.

And we post them the question, if a patient comes to you and says, I had this experience that I want to tell you about, would you feel comfortable talking with them about it? And what are the barriers you feel to open up and talking about them? And we had a list of some 25 possible barriers we thought might be things they said. And we were very pleased to find that almost none of them said, I don't think it's worth talking about, it's not important.

Or is just a neurological artifact, doesn't mean anything. Or is this type of psychosis by far the most common response doctors gave was the barrier is, I don't know enough about the experience to talk to patients about it. And the second most common was, I don't know time to talk about this with my patients, I'm too busy. And those are both things that we can correct. We can certainly give more training to physicians and we can restructure the schedule so that you have time to talk to patients.

What are the most, if any, reliable ways to simulate an NDE or NDE like experience? And it makes me think back to a movie, it may not age well. But I enjoyed it at the time with Kiefer Sutherland 2000. No, it was prior to that 1990 something called flatliners. Right. And they're medical students who would take turns putting themselves right to a brief period of death. And then they get into this arms race of competing with one another and pushing it further and further and further.

But my understanding based on some of what I've read, you do have familiarity with some of the psychedelic related science is that these NDE seem to produce more what have been described as out of body experiences. Perhaps more, I don't want to say reliably more frequently than psychedelic experiences. But are there any will come back to that point?

But are there any ways to simulate it in such a way to make it more studyable, even if it's not the exact phenomenon since I'm sure the IRB would have a tough time accepting temporarily killing patients or subjects that are recruited for a study. Is there anything that approximates it or any thoughts on how we might do that? Keeping in mind, this is an imperfect example, but long ago, decades ago, psychedelics reviewed as psychotomimetics.

So they could be used as a tool for effectively eliciting a psychotic episode so it could be better studied. Now that ends up not being quite right. But how would you think about approximating an NDE? I don't think there's a good way. I think the tool we have that comes closest to our certain psychedelic drugs in a very supportive environment.

I don't think people just taking drugs on their own can necessarily replicate a new-death experience, but in a supportive environment in the lab with low lighting and good music and someone there to help you with it. You can replicate some of the features of a new-death experience, not all of them, and you tend not to have all the after-effects. And I think it's understandable because if you have an experience under drugs, you can say, oh, that's just a drug that wasn't real.

Whereas it happens spontaneously, it's hard to dismiss. One of the issues with the drugs is that we can find out what's going on in the brain when people are given these drugs. And that's fine. But then you make the leap to saying, well, this is the same change in the brain that occurs during a negative experience. That's an assumption. We don't have the evidence for that yet. It tells us how we might look for places in the brain, where we might look, and what types of changes.

But that work hasn't been done yet, so it's all speculative. And certainly, the drug-induced experiences are not identical to new-death experiences. Many new-death experiences have tried drugs afterwards to try to replicate the experience. And they universally tell me it's not the same thing. One person told me, when I was on psilocybin, I saw heaven. I was in my new-death experience. I was in heaven. That was what he explained it.

But they had not to have the same after-effects. And one question of that, I will say, is that the recent work done at Johns Hopkins with psilocybin has found a marked decrease in fear of death after a short experience with psilocybin. And it doesn't fall upon this, at least a year after the experience, they still have that decreased fear of death and it's very encouraging.

Yeah, it's presently durable. It directly correlated with the strength of the mystical experience, which is measured using an assessment much like your scale for NDEs. What other characteristics seem to be hard to replicate with drugs or less frequent in occurrence? And perhaps this is an opportunity to speak to what exactly an out-of-body experience is as you would define it. And I think we already gave, perhaps, an example of this with the wings flapping. But could you say more about that?

It's tricky to define an out-of-body experience. There's a large body of evidence looking at people who have their temporal lobe of their brains stimulate electrically. And they were claimed they produce out-of-body experiences. They do not. They may produce a sense of nothing aware of your body anymore. But they don't pursue a sense of leaving your body and being able to turn around and look at your body and seeing it from an out-of-body perspective.

They often say that with this stimulation you can see a double of yourself. But you're seeing it from inside the body. You're not outside the body. And the double you see is static. It's not moving around. Whereas people who have real out-of-body experiences talk about moving around the room, want your distant places. People who have out-of-body experiences sometimes can report things accurately that can be corroborated later on. That doesn't happen with stimulation of the temporal lobe.

So they'll have differences between these artifacts that are produced by temporal lobe stimulation and real out-of-body experiences. When you reach some of the papers that have been published about temporal lobe stimulation, they say things like, well, my legs are getting shorter. I felt like I was falling off the gurney and they're called these out-of-body experiences. They're not.

They're somatic hallucinations. With their not-out-of-body experiences, you can get out-of-body experiences with other types of mystical experience and with psychedelic drugs. Whether the same or not is kind of open to the question right now, we don't have examples of people having drug-induced out-of-body experiences, having accurate perceptions of what's going on around them.

Whereas you do with near-death experiences, you know, that may be because we haven't looked deep enough yet. And we may find them. But this one, we don't have that. Sure. A strange experience, and then we'll get into the, as promised, to the listeners, some of the stranger stuff. But not that this is just a plain vanilla walk through the DSM.

So I have a fear amount of flight time with different psychedelic compounds. And the one time, I would say, I consistently experienced what you would describe, or might describe as an out-of-body experience, was in using, and I highly discourage anyone to use this, a turp annoyed called Salvanorin-A, which is found in Salvia Divinorum. Otherwise known as Diviner Sage, used by the Mausatex in Mexico for centuries, probably in millennia. And part of the reason I don't recommend it.

Well, first of all, you can go on YouTube and just search Salvia Freakout, and you'll get lots of video footage for why you should probably steer clear of it. But it's a, as I recall, a capo opioid agonist, and that is consuming an agonist of the capo opioid receptors, typically is described as acutely dysphoric. So what is dysphoria? Well, it's the opposite of euphoria. It's horrible, terrible, terrifying experience for most people.

So I don't recommend using it. But these experiences are notable for two reasons. Number one, I had no expectancy, no, I didn't know anyone who had consumed a purified Salvanorin-A. And secondly, I was observed by clinicians, and in one case was inside an FMRI machine, so I could not see anything outside of the machine.

But in both cases, the experience was effectively a flattened abstract experience, devoid of time, space, a sense of self, nonetheless there was an observer, but incredibly bizarre experience, even compared to, say, a Salvanorin-NNDMT or something else. And in each instance, I, two experiences, at some point, mid-abstraction, I effectively had the view of a CC TV camera in the upper corner of each room.

And I was able to see what all the scientists were doing, all the clinicians, and was able to corroborate those after the fact. And in the first instance, I was not an FMRI machine, so people might say, well, you could have had one eye open, and you could have been watching. I would challenge anyone in the depth of this experience to attempt to report anything visual with their eyes open.

But the fact that I was literally strapped down inside an FMRI machine would preclude any ability, as we currently understand it, to use my eyes to see anything. And that raises some questions for me, because I do have a reasonably broad pallet of experience with different molecules, but that was two for two, and I haven't experienced that in anything else. This is slowly meandering into the stranger territory.

So it seems to be the case that certainly we can occasion very strange experiences with the ingestion or inhalation of different compounds. Right? So the brain has some role as a mediator of experience in the world. But then you seem to document in your experience these phenomena that seem to reflect a mind beyond brain for lack of a better descriptor, and I don't want to put words in your mouth.

How do you begin to even think about this? And is the brain, I suppose we could make an argument for this on a whole lot of levels, a reducing valve as Aldous Huxley might put it, right? That is filtering for information that is optimized for survival and procreation. And when you do something that, I suppose, opens the aperture of that reducing valve, then suddenly you have these experiences. Is the brain acting like a receiver of some type?

Now the argument against that would be, well, if you damage the brain, you can observe all of these effects on perception and cognition and so on. How at this point, given all of your documentation, discussions with colleagues in and outside of this area of expertise, think about mind versus brain. With the understanding that there's a lot more we don't know than what we know. Right. But how do you think about this? I was taught in college and medical school that the mind is what the brain does.

And all our thoughts and feelings and perceptions are all created by the brain. And I cannot believe that anymore, seeing people who, whose brains were either offline or severe, sure than impaired, telling me they had the most elaborate experience they've ever had. So I'm inclined to think that the mind is something else and the brain kind of filters it, as you said, this is not a new idea. 2000 years ago, the abacrotees said this, the brain is a messenger of the mind.

And this is not surprising because we know that the brain has these filters. Is the default boat network and the Thalmole cortical network? If people are listening to us now, don't really care what we look like. They want to hear what we're saying. So their Thalmole cortical circuit, tamps down the visual input and focuses on the auditory input.

And likewise, we're not hearing the train go by outside or the traffic outside was your focusing on this. And as you brain doing that, this filtering out what's still going to pay attention to. And it starts even beyond the brain at our sense organs. You know, you don't see all the visual light that's out there. You just see a small portion that is in our visual spectrum. We don't see infrared and ultraviolet. And likewise, we only hear a small fraction of the frequencies of sound available.

We don't hear the sounds that dogs and bats here were elephants and dolphins. So our brain and the associated sensory systems that we have with that filter's out. Filters out things that are not important to our survival. Now we think about the things that happen in near-death experience. Seeing deceased loved ones leaving the body. That's not essential for survival. You can get food and shelter in a mate and avoid predators without all that.

So it makes sense that the brain would normally filter that stuff out and not pay attention to it. And if in a near-death experience or similar experiences, the brain is shutting down selectively so that that filter mechanism is put on hold. Or being weakened, then you have access to this other consciousness. Now the reason the question of what is this other consciousness, where is it?

In a way that's a bogus question because if it's a not-fisiculantity, how can I have a where? We can't be any place. But I'm not a philosopher. I'm an apuracist. And when see people say to me, as many do, if you have this non-physical mind, how does it interact with a physical brain? I have no idea. On the other hand, if you take a materialistic perspective and say, how does the brain, the chemical and electrical changes in the brain create an abstract thought? We have no idea about that either.

So with an apuracist, a materialistic or not, we can't explain how thoughts arise and how they get processed to us. What we do know is that all our experiences are filtered to us through the brain. You can have the most elaborate mystical experience in the world. But to tell me about it, if you back in your body with words created by your brain and filtered through concepts that your brain puts on it.

So obviously the brain is evolved in perceiving and processing and relating the near-death experience. You can't get around that. It doesn't mean it's creating it. And also, as I wanted to add, and I've heard you discuss this, just because something is currently unexplainable does not mean it is fundamentally unexplainable. Right, if we look back at the history of science, and certainly this will continue to be the case, we would laugh at some of the presuppositions of 200 years ago.

And there's no reason to think that 100, 200 years from now, certainly with the rate of technological change, maybe 5, 10 years from now, almost with certainty. We will look back at many of the things we took to be true now and laugh at them similarly, and that in science, everything is provisional in a sense.

Right, it is until proven otherwise, which it almost inevitably is, is there's something that's added to it. It would seem to me that studying this field, documenting these cases, doing your best to make sense of these things is not without career cost.

Of course. It would seem to me, and certainly this was the case with psychedelics say a few decades ago, to try to scientifically study psychedelics, putting aside all of the nightmares of logistics with dealing with the FDA and handling schedule one compounds and so on, to take that path was used as career suicide. And I don't know if that's a fair label to apply to your field of study with respect to NDEs, but what if the cost been, if any, and why have you persisted despite those costs?

It's less of a problem now than it was back in the 1980s, when no one knew about these things. Most academic centers assumed this was just a few crazy patients telling the stories, and they were worth investigating.

And I was told in what university that if I continue to study these things, I would not get tenure. So I ended up leaving that place and go do a different university before I came up for tenure, wasn't willing to risk that. But I did now get tenure at two subsequent universities, where it's become more acceptable to study unusual phenomena, as long as you're doing it inside the respective way and publishing your material in mainstream medical journals.

So I think it's less of an issue now, but you still see a lot of, I wouldn't say it's its professional suicide, but certainly professional barriers being raised to people who study these things. I think why people do it, partly because they're intellectually curious about it, is it challenge here? I don't understand it, and I want to.

And, partly more importantly, for me is these experiences have profound effects on the people who have them. Mrs. Psychiatrist, I want to understand that and help them deal with those effects that they need help with it. So I think it's irresponsible to ignore and say it doesn't exist.

Let's talk about some of your other interests, research interests, and I have a note here, Genomics Study of Extraordinary Twin Communication. Could you elaborate on this? This actually was not my project originally. The Israeli Psychologist, Borough Fischmann, contact to me and said, I've got this great study I'd like to do.

And I found a twin genomic database in England, but it got 15,000 pairs of twins and they've been entire genomic platform all laid out. So we can survey these twins they have, but what they've had, some type of communication, when they're at distant locations, what you call it, telepathy, you can call it extra sensory, you can call it coincidental, but they have reliable communication with each other when they're far away from each other.

Can we find out from the genomic analysis, what genes are associated with this ability? I thought, that sounds interesting. One of the things I would pick, but I'm sure I came to try that. So we did apply for a grant. And we got the approval of the group in England, but the study hasn't actually started yet, but it makes me wonder about the genetics that goes into having a new death experience.

We've been studying what's going on in the brain, what's going on in the heart, and lungs, we have to scratch the surface of what's going on in your genes that they bake you more likely to have a new death experience or a certain type of experience. Now we know that when their hearts stop between 10 and 20% to people will have a new death experience, and we haven't found anywhere predicting who's going to have one or not.

But maybe the answer is in the genes. So I think it's worth doing a genetic study of people who have any of that experiences and those who don't. I've had a handful of guests on this show who have identical twins, and they have all maybe off the record, I think in some cases on the record and conversation. I've shared with me stories that certainly defy any current conventional explanation of communication with their twins, and it's 100% at this point.

And I've only had a handful of individuals with identical twins, but in several cases these are scientists, these are people who are otherwise as kind of rational materialists as you could be. They are not going to refute their own direct experience, continued direct experience with their identical twin. It does raise a lot of questions, and if we want to get really sci-fi, you think about genetic engineering, you think of CRISPR, you think of gene therapies.

If we were to, in some capacity, determine which code is responsible, which light switches are responsible. Would it be possible to increase someone's ability to express those capabilities in the same way that we might say toy with myostatin inhibition or something like that to catalyze increased muscle growth in the sense you might see in bully wippets or in Belgian blue cattle as an example. It certainly seems like a study worth doing. Why not? I mean, worst case, you find no correlation.

There's a lot of ifs in that question. If we could do this, if we could do that. Lots of ifs. Lots of ifs. And frankly, I'm not encouraged by what I've seen so far with genetic engineering. When we can make tomatoes with a thick skin that can travel better across country, but they're not the flavor that a normal tomato does. You can modify something. You may gain something you're looking for, but you may lose something else.

When you try messing with human genes, you don't know what you're going to come up with. Oh, for sure. How much funding are you seeking for this particular twin communication study, the genomics study? That's a small one, just $50,000 or so. And the role of science, that is very inexpensive. Other studies outside of NDE, is what you like to see done? Are there any that are kind of shovel ready, so to speak, or close to shovel ready?

We've mentioned people who claim to leave their bodies and see things accurately from an adabotic perspective. I would like to get a more controlled version of that. And people to try that, Sam Pornia, and while he was trying it a couple of times, I didn't try it once. I've been total of six published studies of attempts to do this, and none of them have been successful.

Usually you'll study things for a year or two and find no needed experiences in your sample, or people who have an NDE, but didn't describe seeing things from an adabotic perspective. So they really hasn't been any test of this yet. The determined skeptic would say, well, that shows that it doesn't really happen. And that people who spontaneously have this experience and tell you about it, are misinterpreting what's happened to them or just making it up.

And our desperately like to find some objective way of measuring this, but we haven't had that yet. So it would be nice to try to own down that and try to find a good way of studying this in a mess, the stuff that Sam Pornia's got. I was participated in one of his studies that had 2,000 patients in it from a variety of hospitals, and we found nothing in that group. So you need a huge study to do this. This was related to adabotic experiences, specifically.

I think there's a lot to be learned from the neurophysiological research that's going on now. There's a very active group at the University of Leation, Belgium that's making headway with this. There are other people around the world who are studying it. There's a group at University College in London, but I think we're a long way from having an answer yet. We're just starting this type of research. And it may be certainly not in my lifetime before we find a good answer.

Is there a study design that you think would be a more intelligent way or a better way to approach controlled study or assessment of adabotic experiences? And part of the reason I ask is that if you look back at, for instance, we could give a famous example, the amazing Randy, who had this outstanding prize, I think it was a million dollars for a hundred thousand dollars for anyone who could demonstrate sci abilities or extra-century perception or film the blank under controlled conditions.

And to my knowledge, no one ever claimed that prize. Now at the same time, if you look at a documentary like, for instance, I believe it's called Project Nim, which looked at the, in retrospect, ill-advised idea to try to raise a chimpanzee as you would a human child, the chimpanzee demonstrated all sorts of learning behaviors and so on that could not be replicated in the lab. Simply because the chimpanzee would shut down, would not demonstrate those behaviors in a laboratory setting.

That doesn't mean they didn't exist, but there are challenges in studying it in a controlled environment. What is your best explanation, again, understanding that for a lot of people, if you can't verify it under, you know, double blind placebo-controlled conditions or the equivalent in this setting, then it doesn't exist. With extreme claims comes the requirement of extreme levels of proof.

But how would you, based on everything that you've studied, colleagues you've spoken with, explain why it is so difficult to produce or reduce the risk of failure. Produce or replicate or study these things in controlled settings. Why is that? It's essentially a spontaneous experience that does not happen under controlled conditions. When you put someone in a lab, they're not the same as they were when they're out on the street.

When we've learned this with sleep studies, when you bring someone into the lab to have them measure their brain waves during sleep, it takes their day or two usually to have them adapt to the situation before you can actually do it. You get something that's at least a bit like what they're normally sleep is. So I think you have to take that into account that people have these experiences out in the wild, so to speak.

And it's hard to tame it without clamping down on the controls to their brain, which showed it off maybe. So I don't know whether you can do that. Well, you can have a really controlled certain chance. We have this experience. You can certainly do it with mimics that mimic part of the experience, for example with drugs or with brain stimulation that can mimic a part of it. And then by implication, develop metaphors, what might be going on in the brain during a new death experience.

It's not the experience itself. What are some of the for you personally open questions that you would love to see answered for lights out onto the next adventure after death if there is an next adventure. What are some of the open questions in this field or in other fields that for you, you would most like to see answered. Are there any burning questions that come to mind?

Well, the big question of questions how their mind brain interact and that certainly you get some hints of that from a near death experience, but there are other phenomena that also address the mind of brain seeming to to separate. And one of these is the terminal lucidity phenomenon where people who have had dementia for a while and cannot communicate or recognize family suddenly become completely lucid again.

And carry on coherent conversations and express appropriate emotions and then they die. Usually within minutes or hours and we don't have any explanation for this. I have a few friends, not just one few friends who have directly seen observe this phenomenon and I do not have any way to explain that.

If you believe the brain has filter mechanism that could play a role in this when a brain is shutting down in the last hours before death, it releases this filter that allows the consciousness to fully flourish. Now, a big problem with that is the person is still able to speak and communicate. So obviously parts of the brain are still functioning just fine. So if you have this experience of heightened lucidity at death, how do you let people know that unless your brain is still functioning?

It is a dilemma because we don't have any medical explanation for how someone with a ability in disease that is irreversible like out some rich disease can suddenly regain function again. There are speculative theories about this, but none of them really make a whole lot of sense and now they've been corroborated by evidence. Now, there are other facets of some of the reported and ease past life review as an example.

You might also have as I understand from listening to a number of your presentations recall or re-experiencing an event through the perspective of someone other than yourself. When you consider all of these reports, how is that affected if at all how you think about time? And I ask that it might seem incredibly broad, but I think most of us tend to think of time as this fundamental constant.

But if you talk to the Carlo Revelli's of the world from pronouncing his name correctly, if you start really digging under the hood, it's difficult to automatically take that as sort of static known fact. And I'm wondering how you think about time if these reports and your research and experiences have changed that at all. Most New Jethics speakers should say there was no time in this other realm either that time stopped or just time ceased to exist.

And when they say that, I reflect on what they're telling me about the experience that say, well, let you tell me that this happened and then this happened and this happened, that applies a linear time. So I can read no time. We've got things happening in sequence. And they just shrug and say, well, when I tell you about it now in this body, in this world, it's a paradox over there it wasn't.

Everything was happening all at once and there wasn't any linear flow. That's just the way it is. I can understand that as an abstract concept. I can't relate to it in my real life. I don't know what that means to not have time, but so much of our life is controlled by what we think of as the linear passage of time.

It's just the pre-want of this time thing when you have some of these non-ordinary experiences. Let me ask about another perhaps non-ordinary experience. And this is something I found in the footnotes of a footnote of a footnote. So you may have some ability to explain this auditory hallucinations after NDEs. I only read the very top abstract in a PDF, so I did not dig into it. But what does this refer to?

I'm a psychiatrist in Colorado, Mitch Leastur and I did this study. We surveyed a large sample of near-death experiences about what seemed to be hearing voices long after the near-death experience. And we also looked at schizophrenics who were hearing voices and compared the experience of those two groups. And they were quite different.

The near-death experiences of claim to still be hearing voices almost universally said these were helpful guiding voices. They enjoyed hearing them and they found them making their lives richer. They gave them some guidance and they were kind of reassuring to them. On the other hand, these schizophrenics almost universally said, these are terrifying hallucinations. I wish they didn't have them. They made my life much harder.

I don't like them at all. We said, we just go away. It's not experiencing the same way. Is it the same phenomenon? I don't know. Among the people who reported the auditory hallucinations, was there any degree of overlap in terms of structural brain damage or otherwise? And the ND group? We don't have the measures of brain function to answer that. To know. Yeah. I could keep going for many, many, many hours. Let me ask you this. Just as a way of branching out a little bit.

In terms of researchers who, in your mind, demonstrate a compelling combination of both open-mindedness but rigorous skepticism. Who would you not ask you to pick among favorites, but who are a few names that come to mind? Sam Parnia at NYU. How do you spell his last name? The ARNAIA. Mm-hmm. Parnia. Got it. There are retired physicians who are still involved in this field. Peter Fennik in England and Tim Van Lommel in the Netherlands.

There's a really psychologist in New Zealand, Natasha Tassel-Malamua, who's doing a lot of interesting research in this area. She is part Maori, and she's doing work with cross-cultural comparison of Maori versus English New Death Experiences. I was also looking a lot of the after effects. Is that large group at the age that I mentioned to you before that's doing a lot of research into this? This is Belgium. Yeah.

Many of them are quite confirmed materialists. That's fine. Still doing good research. The head of that lab, though, Steve Laurie's, is much more open-minded. He still is materialist, but he's more open-minded about what these things may mean. And he's certainly compassionate about how it affects the people who have these, which is probably more important to me than what they think it's causing it. So there are a number of people around the world who are doing good research with this area.

You have written a number of books and co-authored, co-edited others. One of them is irreducible mind toward the psychology for the 21st century. What does the irreducible mind refer to? That basically means a mind that's not reducible to chemical processes, electrical processes in the brain.

It's a mind that can be independent of the brain. And that book, without ever mentioning anything paranormal or parapsychological, goes through a series of phenomena in everyday life, that point to mind and brain not being the same thing. And it does include new death experiences, and other experiences near death includes exceptional genius, includes psychosomatic phenomena, a variety of things that have occurred to perfectly normal people over the centuries.

And it has been well documented and almost seem to be compatible with any of the brain creates all our thoughts and feelings. Which of your books, whether solely authored, co-authored or co-edited, would you suggest people start with if they wanted to dive deeper? I would suggest my most recent book after, because that's really geared towards the average person, the layman.

And as written in language, we're talking right now, I tried to minimize jargon, whereas the other books I've written have been primarily for academicians, which are much harder to read, much denser, still excellent books, but not for the average person. And that is after subtitle, a doctor explores what near death experiences reveal about life and beyond. Right.

So that's where people should start. Well, Dr. Grayson, this has been a very wide-ranging conversation. Is there anything that you would like to discuss, mention or request you'd like to make in my audience, something you'd like to point them to anything at all that I'd like to say before we start to wind to a close?

I think that things that want people to know about near death experiences are in number one, that they're very common, about 5% of the general population are one-devil 20 people, as had a dear death experience. And secondly, that they are not associated anyway with mental illness. People who are perfectly normal have these NDEs in abnormal situations, but can happen to anybody.

And there are that they lead to sometimes profound long-lasting after effects, both positive and negative, that never seem to go away over decades. People can find all things Bruce Grayson. It would seem at BruceGrason.com, if I'm not mistaken, so Bruce Grayson, g-r-e-y-s-o-n.com. And you have quite a few books to your credit, but the one to start with would be after subtitle a doctor explores what near death experiences reveal about life and beyond. Is there anything else?

I think just you covered it pretty well, Jim. All right. Well, thank you very much for the time. If everybody listening, we will link to everything that we discussed in the show notes as per usual, a Timed Up Log slash podcast. And you just search Bruce probably and he'll pop right up. And as always, until next time, be just a bit kinder than it's necessary, not only to others, but to yourself. And thank you for tuning in.

Hey guys, this is Tim again. Just one more thing before you take off. And that is 5 Bullet Friday. Would you enjoy getting a short email from me every Friday that provides a little fun before the weekend? Between 1.5 and 2 million people subscribed to my free newsletter, my super short newsletter called 5 Bullet Friday.

Easy to sign up, easy to cancel. It is basically a half page that I send out every Friday to share the coolest things I've found or discovered or have started exploring over that week. It's kind of like my diary of cool things. It often includes articles on reading, books on reading, albums perhaps gadgets, gizmos, all sorts of tech tricks and so on.

It gets sent to me by my friends, including a lot of podcast, guests and these strange esoteric things end up in my field. And then I test them and then I share them with you. So if that sounds fun, again, it's very short, a little tiny bite of goodness before you head off for the weekend, something to think about.

If you'd like to try it out, just go to Tim.logslashfriday. Type that into your browser, tim.logslash. Friday, drop in your email and you'll get the very next one. Thanks for listening. As many of you know, for the last few years, I've been sleeping on a midnight locks mattress from today's sponsor. He looks sleep. I also have one in the guest bedroom downstairs and feedback from friends has always been fantastic.

People over the top, you honest, I mean, they frequently say, it's the best night of sleep they've had in ages, what kind of mattresses and what do you do? What's the magic juju? It's something they comment on without any prompting from me whatsoever. I also recently had a chance to test the Helix Sunset Elite in a new guest bedroom, which I sometimes sleep in. And I picked it for its very soft, but supportive feel to help with some lower back pain that I've had.

The Sunset Elite delivers exceptional comfort while putting the right support in the right spots. It is made with five tailored foam layers, including a base layer with full perimeter zoned of lumbar support, right where I need it. And middle layers with premium foam and micro coils to create a soft, contouring feel, which also means if I feel like I want to sleep on my side, I can do that without worrying about other aches and pains I might create.

And with a luxurious pillow top for pressure relief, I look forward to nesting into that bed every night that I use it. The part of the course is that it helps me wake up feeling fully rested with a back that feels supple instead of stiff. That is the name of the game for me these days. Helix offers a 100 night sleep trial, fast free shipping and a 15 year warranty. So check it all out. It's 20% off of all mattress orders by going to helix sleep.com slash Tim.

That's helix sleep.com slash Tim for 20% off all mattress orders. I've been fascinated by the microbiome and probiotics as well as prebiotics for decades. But products never quite live up to the hype. I've tried so many dozens and there are a host of problems. Now things are starting to change and that includes this episode sponsor Seeds DSO on Daily Simbiotic. Now it turns out that this product Seeds DSO on was recommended to me many months ago by a PhD microbiologist.

So I started using it well before their team ever reached out to me about sponsorship. Which is kind of ideal because I used it unbitten so to speak, it came in fresh. Since then it has become a daily staple and one of the few supplements I travel with. I have it in a suitcase literally about 10 feet for me right now. It goes with me. I've always been very skeptical of most probiotics due to lack of science behind them. In fact, many do not survive digestion.

The beginning of many of them are shipped dead DOA. But after incorporating two capsules of Seeds DSO on into my morning routine, I have noticed improved digestion and improved overall health. It seemed to be a bunch of different cascading effects. Based on some reports, I'm hoping it will also have an effect on my lipid profile but that is definitely TBD. So why is Seeds DSO on so effective? What makes it different?

For one, it is a two-in-one probiotic and prebiotic formulated with 24 clinically and scientifically studied strains that have systemic benefits in and beyond the gut. That's all well and good, but if the probiotic strains don't make it to the right place, in other words, you're colon, they're not as effective. So Seed developed a proprietary capsule and capsule delivery system that survives digestion and delivers a precision release of the live and viable probiotics to the gut.

That's exactly where you want them to go to do the work. I've been impressed with Seed's dedication to science-backed engineering with completed gold standard trials that have been subjected to peer review and published in leading scientific journals. They standard you very rarely see from companies who develop supplements. If you've ever thought about probiotics but haven't known where to start, this is my current vote for great gut health.

You can start here or cost less than $2 a day. That is the DSO one. And now you can get 25% off your first month with code 25 Tim. That is 25% off of your first month of Seed's DSO one at Seed.com slash Tim using code 25 Tim all put together. That's Seed.com slash Tim. And if you forget it, you will see the coupon code on that page. One more time, Seed.com slash Tim code 25 Tim.