ABSTRACT
In this context, and by way of conclusion to this chapter, we might usefully return to recall a central contention of this study overall: that NDErs’ experiences are inevitably encoded in testimony, and that therefore their narratives are all we have as evidence for the occurrence and detail of their experiences. In view of this consideration, we might begin by highlighting some penetrating questions regarding the adequacy of any neuroscientific explanation – whether utilizing single-or multiple-factor theories – to account for NDErs’ stories. For as Zaleski has asserted and as we have had abundant cause to note:
The otherworld journey . . . is at its very roots a story. In order to fulfill its narrative purpose of engaging interest and its didactic purpose of impelling the audience from ideology to action, it must portray the afterlife as an active
realm, and the soul as a protagonist whose experiences epitomize and interpret those of earthly life. If the soul must take on the shape of the body for that purpose, then so be it; if near-death visions had to conform to the requirements of abstract philosophical theology they would make dull stories indeed.
