Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Correspondence
  • Published:

Limitations of neurocentric models for near-death experiences

Nature Reviews Neurology volume 21, page 461 (2025)Cite this article

Subjects

Access through your institution
Buy or subscribe

We read with great interest the recent proposal by Martial and colleagues (Martial, C. et al. A neuroscientific model of near-death experiences. Nat. Rev. Neurol. 21, 297–311; 2025)1 for a neuroscientific model of near-death experiences (NDEs). We commend the authors for integrating multiple neurophysiological and putative evolutionary perspectives. However, we respectfully submit that their model, though ambitious, omits key phenomenological features that are central to the core NDE experience and overextends certain neurochemical correlates into causal explanations.

In establishing their neurocentric model, Martial et al. attempt to reframe many defining features of NDEs2,3. NDEs characteristically involve a distinct constellation of features that sets them apart from dreams, fantasies, hallucinations or epileptic phenomena. These features include veridical out-of-body observations (often corroborated by medical personnel); transitions to ‘otherworldly realms’; panoramic life reviews (including re-experiencing past events from multiple vantage points); and encounters with deceased (but not living) relatives or ‘beings of light’4. Many experiencers also undergo lifelong transformative changes in personal values and a marked loss of fear of death2,4,5. Such features appear with remarkable consistency across cultures and times2,4,6, and merely equating them with phenomena on the spectra of hallucinations or stress-induced fantasies misses precisely what distinguishes NDEs in terms of their specificity, coherence and intensity7.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Access through your institution

Buy this article

  • Purchase on SpringerLink
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

References

  1. Martial, C. et al. A neuroscientific model of near-death experiences. Nat. Rev. Neurol. 21, 297–311 (2025).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Greyson, B. Consistency of near-death experience accounts over two decades: are reports embellished over time? Resuscitation 73, 407–411 (2007).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Parnia, S. et al. Guidelines and standards for the study of death and recalled experiences of death — a multidisciplinary consensus statement and proposed future directions. Ann. NY Acad. Sci. 1511, 5–21 (2022).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Greyson, B. Implications of near-death experiences for a postmaterialist psychology. Psychol. Relig. Spiritual. 2, 37–45 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Belanti, J., Perera, M. & Jagadheesan, K. Phenomenology of near-death experiences: a cross-cultural perspective. Transcult. Psychiatry 45, 121–133 (2008).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. van Lommel, P. Near-death experiences: the experience of the self as real and not as an illusion. Ann. NY Acad. Sci. 1234, 19–28 (2011).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Parnia, S. Understanding the cognitive experience of death and the near-death experience. QJM 110, 67–69 (2017).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. van Lommel, P., van Wees, R., Meyers, V. & Elfferich, I. Near-death experience in survivors of cardiac arrest: a prospective study in the Netherlands. Lancet 358, 2039–2045 (2001).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Parnia, S. et al. AWARE — AWAreness during REsuscitation — a prospective study. Resuscitation 85, 1799–1805 (2014).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Kelly, E. F., Kelly, E. W., Crabtree, A., Gauld, A. & Grosso, M. Irreducible Mind: Toward a Psychology for the 21st Century (Rowman & Littlefield, 2009).

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgery, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand

    Greg O’Grady & Chris Varghese

Authors
  1. Greg O’Grady
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Chris Varghese
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Greg O’Grady.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

O’Grady, G., Varghese, C. Limitations of neurocentric models for near-death experiences. Nat Rev Neurol 21, 461 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41582-025-01117-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41582-025-01117-3

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing