Can Near-Death Experiences Be Explained Away?
If you’ve ever heard a near-death experience (NDE) story—the tunnel of light, the life review, the profound peace—you’ve probably also heard the standard scientific rebuttal
“It’s just a brain starved of oxygen.”
“It’s a final dream caused by a flood of DMT.”
“It’s just random neurons firing as the system shuts down.”
For decades, this has been the dominant, materialistic narrative. NDEs are fascinating, the story goes, but they’re ultimately illusions—the brain’s last, desperate fireworks display before the permanent blackout.
But what if that story is wrong? What if the data we’ve been collecting for 50 years points in a completely different direction?
A powerful new paper published in October 2025 is forcing the scientific community to do a double-take. The study, “A Neuroscientific Model of Near-Death Experiences Reconsidered” by Dr. Bruce Greyson and Marieta Pehlivanova from the University of Virginia, systematically dismantles the argument that NDEs are mere brain malfunctions.
And the implications are, frankly, mind-blowing.
The Challenger: The “Comprehensive” NEPTUNE Model
Earlier in 2025, a large multinational team published a paper in Nature Reviews Neurology proposing a new, all-encompassing theory called NEPTUNE (the Neurophysiological Evolutionary Psychological Theory Understanding Near-Death Experience).
It was a grand unified theory of skepticism, pulling together every conceivable brain-based explanation:
- Low oxygen/High CO₂
- Temporal lobe seizures
- Stimulation of the temporoparietal junction (TPJ) – thought to cause out-of-body illusions
- REM sleep intrusion
- Ketamine/DMT-like chemistry
- Electrical “surges” in the dying brain
Skeptics pointed to NEPTUNE as the final word. Finally, a model that explained away the mystery! But Greyson and Pehlivanova, with decades of NDE research under their belts, looked at the model and saw a house of cards.
Their paper is a meticulous, point-by-point deconstruction.
The Takedown: 8 Reasons Why “Just the Brain” Isn’t Enough
Here’s how Greyson and Pehlivanova challenge the core arguments of the NEPTUNE model:
- The Oxygen Problem: If low oxygen causes NDEs, then why do studies of cardiac arrest survivors show that many who report profound NDEs had normal oxygen and CO₂ levels? And why are these experiences so lucid and structured, while true hypoxia typically causes confused, garbled, and amnesic states?
- The Seizure Mismatch: While temporal lobe epilepsy can cause odd feelings or hallucinations, they are almost always described as frightening, fragmented, and bizarre. They don’t resemble the coherent, narrative, and deeply peaceful story of a typical NDE. As one prominent epileptologist admitted, “In spite of having seen hundreds of patients with temporal lobe seizures… I have never come across that symptomatology [of NDEs] as part of a seizure” (Rodin, 1989, as cited in Greyson & Pehlivanova, 2025).
- The Out-of-Body Illusion: Stimulating the TPJ can create a sense of dissociation or the “impression” of a shadowy figure. But this is a far cry from the detailed, veridical Out-of-Body Experiences (OBEs) reported in NDEs, where people accurately describe surgical procedures, conversations, and specific details in other rooms—details they could not have perceived with their physical senses. These verified perceptions are a thorn in the side of any purely neurological model (Holden, 2009).
- The Drug Disconnect: Experiences on ketamine or DMT might share superficial similarities with NDEs, like visual patterns. But the profound, life-altering quality, the hyper-real clarity, the encounter with deceased loved ones, and the permanent personality changes are largely absent from drug-induced states.
- The REM Intrusion Red Herring: This theory suggests NDEs are like dream states intruding on wakefulness. But research shows NDE experiencers don’t have more REM intrusion than the general population. Furthermore, NDEs often occur under general anesthesia, which suppresses REM sleep.
- The “Dying Brain Surge” That Wasn’t: Recent headlines have trumpeted studies showing electrical surges in the dying brain. But Greyson and Pehlivanova point out a critical flaw: these studies were on patients whose hearts were still beating. They were not clinically dead. More importantly, none of the patients in these studies who showed these surges reported any conscious experience, let alone an NDE.
- The Unexplained Core: The NEPTUNE model conveniently ignores the most challenging aspects of NDEs: verified OBEs, encounters with deceased relatives the person didn’t know had died, and the profound, lasting aftereffects like the complete loss of fear of death and a radical shift toward altruism.
- The Philosophical Bias: The authors of the NEPTUNE model explicitly state they excluded any “dualistic” theories (the idea that consciousness might be more than the brain) because it contradicts a “fundamental tenet of neuroscience.” Greyson and Pehlivanova call this out as circular reasoning: assuming the brain produces consciousness, and then ignoring any evidence that challenges that assumption.
The Bigger Picture: What Else Does the Research Show?
Greyson and Pehlivanova are not lone voices. They stand on the shoulders of a robust field of research.
- How Common Are NDEs? It’s estimated that 5-10 percent of the population has reported an NDE following a close brush with death. With millions of cardiac arrests and other life-threatening events worldwide each year, we are talking about a significant and recurring human experience.
- Pioneers in the Field: Dr. Greyson himself created the Greyson NDE Scale, a standardized tool to identify and measure the phenomenon. Other key figures include:
- Raymond Moody, who coined the term “Near-Death Experience” in his 1975 book Life After Life.
- Kenneth Ring, a pioneering researcher who documented the common patterns of NDEs.
- Pim van Lommel, a Dutch cardiologist whose 2001 prospective study on NDEs in cardiac arrest survivors in The Lancet was a landmark in the field.
The Takeaway: A Mystery That Refuses to Die
The Greyson and Pehlivanova paper doesn’t claim to have all the answers. But it does something crucial: it demonstrates that the old, comfortable materialistic explanations are scientifically inadequate.
They fail to account for the data.
This forces a humbling and exciting conclusion: The relationship between consciousness and the brain is one of the greatest unsolved mysteries of our time.
Near-death experiences, far from being simple glitches, may be our most compelling clue that there is far more to this story.
The next time someone tells you an NDE is “just the brain dying,” you can tell them the science has evolved.
The conversation is no longer about if these experiences are real, but what they are telling us about the fundamental nature of mind, life, and death.
See more here substack.com
Header image: Sydney Morning Herald