In order to get this scientific study done, and move off of the top-dead-center of stories and anecdotes as Malf has aptly contended, we have to achieve a point of permission to study this topic freely, in the minds of those who control access to our scientific public assets. Not proof mind you, but an earlier step in the scientific method called 'plurality'. Which means 'more than one' idea or speculation which is now OK to be researched.
“Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate” or “Plurality should not be posited without necessity”
Summa Totius Logicae, William of Ockham (frater Occham)
So given this recognized standard of science, we as at-risk stakeholders (the actual owners of science) are faced with the question, 'Has plurality become necessary?' regarding NDE study. Is it now 'OK' or even imperative to research this topic as something other than merely a monist psychological phenomenon, i.e. the 'Null'? Alex is correct, Parnia is a sponsor of other-than-monist study now. This is what Parnia means by this Letter Reply in
Resuscitation 97 (2015) e15
...we and many others consider that recent advances in critical care and resuscitation science have made it imperative for questions related to human consciousness (referred to as the psyche through the lineage of Greek philosophers) and what happens in relation to death to now be studied through the objective lens of science rather than philosophy.
Please note that the idea that NDE's are merely closed set material phenomena, is NOT a hypothesis by a Wittgenstein standard... so it is simply the Null, or absence - it is merely a construct, a placeholder of discipline for research. Usually when the Null is not even an actual hypothesis itself, plurality is assumed - but unfortunately we have religious forces controlling study around this question, so the Null is installed as an enforced Omega Hypothesis instead (a presupposed answer which is now more important to protect, than the integrity of science itself).
This is the objection that I raise as a philosopher, and as one experienced in prosecuting hard research questions as the CEO of a research corporation.
The issue is not proof and never has been - the issue is being allowed to study any other-than-monist hypothesis as a valid expression of science in the first place. This has nothing whatsoever to do with the 'supernatural'. In the end, the phenomenon is natural, no matter what prejudicial language we may employ. Such mischaracterizations seek to manipulate the public trust of science at Point Indigo (the hidden cheat - see below).
To date, if you have not been a psychologist PhD studying this in order to prove that it is merely a monist phenomenon of a dying brain neural-chemical retraction - one has not been doing science - rather 'pseudoscience'. This is malicious horse shit; a trick which has been played on us all - the at-risk stakeholders. This is not actually how science works in a normal hypothesis prosecution and reduction.
There exist 31 different genres of study at our avail, and most of these will not be deployable as long as this Indigo Cheat remains in play. Types, modes of inference and study design we could use IF AND ONLY IF we are allowed to regard this idea as an actual construct or hypothesis which any hospital or hospice can recognize, and deploy its research protocols into its regular operations, without religious refusal by condemnation.
And therein resides the Indigo Point (point of deception early in the process) - all one has to do, in order to block this science from being completed is
bewitch by means of language; provide soft authoritative opposition, publish distractions, stir confusion, doubt or obfuscation at the Indigo Point - Ockham's Razor. Agents of such policy use weapon words such as 'woo', 'not rigorous', 'anecdote', 'burden of proof', 'extraordinary claims', 'stories', 'supernatural', 'and 'pseudoscience'. They conduct low value inductive study suggesting the Null might be feasible (which is then boasted as likely)...
''Philosophy is a battle against the bewitchment of our intelligence by means of language.'' ~ Ludwig Wittgenstein
Let me make this clear: Those who do so, adorn the costume of science, but in no way do they want any Wittgenstein nor Popper level science completed on this subject at all. They wear the robes of science in order to enforce either religious Abrahamism or religious Monism. Either of these ancient cults is made extraordinarily angry by this research - and they will do anything in order to block it at the
Indio Point: Ockham's Razor. Even to the point of faking as a researcher.
A skeptic is an ALLY at Point Indigo - he wants the answer and will prioritize any research which serves to place the Null in peril.. a religious cult faker on the other hand can be detected by his efforts to do the exact opposite, to block plurality before it can ever be declared. To spray the field of science at night with a pre-emergent pesticide which will ensure that only the answer they desire, will come true in the growing sunlight.
McCulloch's Axiom - it is often possible to extrapolate the truth solely from what is banned.
Terror will compromise one to their very soul. It takes courage to do actual science.