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:

Reply to ‘Limitations of neurocentric models for near-death experiences’

Nature Reviews Neurology volume 21, page 462 (2025)Cite this article

Subjects

Access through your institution
Buy or subscribe

We thank O’Grady and Varghese for their comments on our recent Review (Martial, C. et al. A neuroscientific model of near-death experiences. Nat. Rev. Neurol. 21, 297–311; 2025)1. We appreciate their engagement (O’Grady, G. & Varghese, C. Limitations of neurocentric models for near-death experiences. Nat. Rev. Neurol. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41582-025-01117-3; 2025)2 and agree wholeheartedly that near-death experiences (NDEs) “remain one of the most intriguing experiences in modern clinical science.”

We recognize the need for multidisciplinary discourse that considers all available evidence. However, such inclusivity must extend to contemporary knowledge from neuroscience and cognitive psychology — key fields for understanding NDEs. Intellectual honesty and methodological rigour are essential in this belief-laden field. In this spirit, our NEPTUNE model1 was not intended to diminish the phenomenological richness or personal value of NDEs, but rather to propose a cognitive-neurobiologically plausible integrative framework grounded in empirical findings. Far from precluding neuroscientific explanation, the compelling phenomenology and profound impact of these experiences call for investigation into how such effects can emerge from extreme states, thereby motivating our evolutionary perspective1,3.

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

Access options

Access through your institution

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Peinkhofer, C., Martial, C., Cassol, H., Laureys, S. & Kondziella, D. The evolutionary origin of near-death experiences: a systematic investigation. Brain Commun. 3, fcab132 (2021).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Martial, C., Cassol, H., Laureys, S. & Gosseries, O. Near-death experience as a probe to explore (disconnected) consciousness. Trends Cogn. Sci. 24, 173–183 (2020).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Sanders, R. D., Tononi, G., Laureys, S. & Sleigh, J. W. Unresponsiveness ≠ unconsciousness. Anesthesiology 116, 946–959 (2012).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Gaskell, A. L. et al. Frontal alpha-delta EEG does not preclude volitional response during anaesthesia: prospective cohort study of the isolated forearm technique. Br. J. Anaesth. 119, 664–673 (2017).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Schacter, D. L., Guerin, S. A. & St Jacques, P. L. Memory distortion: an adaptive perspective. Trends Cogn. Sci. 15, 467–474 (2011).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Engmann, B. Perils and pitfalls of near-death experience research. Nat. Rev. Neurol. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41582-025-01118-2 (2025).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. 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 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Coma Science Group, GIGA-Consciousness, GIGA-Research, University of Liège, Liège, Belgium

    Charlotte Martial, Pauline Fritz, Olivia Gosseries & Nicolas Lejeune

  2. NeuroRehab & Consciousness Clinic, Neurology Department, University Hospital of Liège, Liège, Belgium

    Charlotte Martial, Pauline Fritz, Olivia Gosseries & Nicolas Lejeune

  3. Anesthesia and Perioperative Neuroscience Laboratory, GIGA-Consciousness, GIGA-Research, University of Liège, Liège, Belgium

    Vincent Bonhomme

  4. Department of Anesthesia and Intensive Care Medicine, University Hospital of Liège, Liège, Belgium

    Vincent Bonhomme

  5. Department of Neurology, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark

    Daniel Kondziella

  6. Department of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark

    Daniel Kondziella

  7. Department of Neurology, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, USA

    Kevin Nelson

Authors
  1. Charlotte Martial
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Pauline Fritz
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Olivia Gosseries
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Vincent Bonhomme
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Daniel Kondziella
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Kevin Nelson
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Nicolas Lejeune
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Charlotte Martial.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

V.B. has had or continues to have financial relationships with Medtronic, Edwards Medical, Orion Pharma, Grünenthal and Elsevier. He is Deputy Editor-in-Chief of Acta Anaesthesiologica Belgica. The other 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

Martial, C., Fritz, P., Gosseries, O. et al. Reply to ‘Limitations of neurocentric models for near-death experiences’. Nat Rev Neurol 21, 462 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41582-025-01119-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41582-025-01119-1

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