I was engrossed and interested in the book. Ant then I got to the part where he was discussing how patients under general anesthesia were recalling what the staff did during a code. About the 10th time he pronounced anesthesia "Anastasia" I had to click the off button and stop listening.
Say something about yourself!
I really enjoyed listening to this book because it was based on Science, not just stories. If you're not a believer, this book probably won't convince you. However, even if you have a small amount of faith in the afterlife, this book will enlighten you to those who have died & come bace, & offer a better understanding of what lies ahead.
While there is no proof of corroboration of all the stories contained in the book, other than assertions made by the person having the experience, the author made a concerted effort to analyze near-death experiences in a scientifically statistical way. He addressed and responded to a multitude of arguments against the likelihood of NDE that have been made by various "experts" over the years. He also intentionally analyzed inconsistencies and addressed them. For those those who like statistical analysis and data, this is a real attempt to analyze the reality of NDEs in a precise and accurate way. It held my interest enough to complete the book.
Well designed book that's purpose is to make a scientific argument for the existence of an afterlife. It manages to interweave many short examples of actual NDE experiences that hint at the deeper messages and meaning that these experiences hold.
The only limitation for me of this book is that in trying to be scientific and objective it looses much of the detail in the actual experiences. This will frustrate people who are looking for in depth analysis of these heavenly experiences, and broader conclusions on what meaning we can draw from these personal accounts.
Scholarly and well written. Hopeful and inspiring. Truth that will stand the test of time but is just a glimpse of things yet to be revealed.
The book was a little scientifically heavy handed given the subject matter, but the subtitle does after all, state that it is a scientific report. I would have liked more detailed examples. That being said, the narrator read it as if it was a news report, even when talking of things of a spiritual or heavenly nature. All the same voice. And as soon as he started mispronouncing words - I counted 6 or 7, the most common being "anesthesia" - used dozens of times, he completely lost credibility for the subject matter... very unprofessional. Is there no one editing or listening to his performance who can clue him in on correct pronunciation of common english words? VERY annoying and distracting!
First of all, I would recommend they read it, not listen to it. And then, I would recommend this as a book to read only after reading some of the other books out about NDE from the people who experienced them. There are many good ones out there to read first. This book's conclusions are the same, but from a different direction.
Narrator should think about the experiences he is talking about and use more reflection and thought in his voice. And if he doesn't know how to pronounce a certain word, look it up first!
I was glad to hear of the research the author did to confirm the afterlife, something I already believe in. I will be interested in visiting his website to learn more.
Probably not because the author didn't read the work.
Not sure, maybe Flipside by Richard Martini in that they both deal with the afterlife. Whereas that book is an amature-sh production, this one is a professional recording.
Sure, but I find him too generic with a lack of character or personality.
Audio books should be read by their authors.
This book asks us to believe that statistics are science because they are gathered on a web page by a doctor who has studied a lot of science. A doctor is close enough to scientist, but making a web page of questionnaires is not science.
The largest part of the proof is that the stories/questionnaires about near-death experiences submitted by self-selected people yield statistically similar answers. The problems begin that near-death is not well defined and many of the people may have had dreams etc. so the author examines the submissions carefully to determine if they match near-death and takes the results he is most sure of and categorizes them and generally reports only the most sure group or the two best groups together. All the outliers are discarded so it is really uncertain if the questionnaires are intrinsically similar or the near-death selection criteria, the self-selection, and any questionnaire bias makes them that way. The author explains his process and does try to minimize influence and reach out to people who may not typically fill out the questionnaire.
This is a difficult thing to do with statistics alone, especially with the fragilities of human memory and perception; I laud the attempt, but this may be an impossible task.
I also took some exception to the way the author deals with skeptics; they are usually lumped together as all having the same opinion that is usually dismissed as naive. In the much less occurring case it is stated that skeptics cannot agree on the cause of something and are therefore dismissed as grasping at straws. If these experiences are not all real, I would imagine they would have many different potential causes and thus it seems like skeptics, whose guesses should be relatively diverse, are not given any real consideration.
This book would be more convincing if some of the people coming back after experiencing having a deep knowledge of the universe and how all things work gave us a formulation for helping Alzheimer's disease patients or the like (if death is not to be feared, as stated in this book as a typical feeling after an NDE, it should be a disease/problem that causes much suffering).
This book is well worth the listen; it is inspiring and interesting... it's just not science.