[acqq]

What is the position of the author can be seen in one sentence from the article:

"Materialistic scientists have proposed a number of physiological explanations to account for the various features of NDEs."

Obviously, the author doesn't consider himself a "materialistic scientist."

[ggreer]

RationalWiki mentions the author of this piece: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Non-materialist_neuroscience#Ma...

This doesn't change the fact that NDEs are an interesting phenomenon, and we're not quite sure what's going on with them. Still, I'll bet money that they're not going to tell us anything new about physics.

[acqq]

Thanks. RationalWiki also concludes:

"Non-materialist neuroscience has failed every single one of the categories. Its basic framework is unwieldy and does not provide any clear, specific, falsifiable predictions. What few tests might be imagined for it have all turned up evidence strongly against its basic predictions. It has failed to advance knowledge, create new hypotheses and definitely has not made clear how it will aid in helping us understand and treat brain injuries or illnesses. It has been a complete flop scientifically. So why the sudden surge in books and publications pushing it? We are dealing with a political and religious movement just as we have dealt with in intelligent design and creationism."

[NaNaN]

In pure logic, the author didn't admit that he was not a materialistic scientist. That's not an important point, right?