Science, Theology, and Near-Death Experiences
The implications of NDEs, provided one acknowledge their veridical nature, needless to say, are far-reaching. Today, two groups are most resistant to accepting their authenticity. Unsurprisingly, the first comprises those who hold a worldview in which only matter exists and those for whom consciousness is reducible to the brain’s neurochemistry. The vigor of their opposition seems to stem at least in part from holding on to a view of existence that leaves no room for the soul, for life after death, for the survival of consciousness, for a world of spirits, and for an immaterial deity. The dogmatism of such “fundamaterialists”—if we may use a term employed by Huston Smith20—might explain the lengths to which many will go to find alternative explanations for the phenomenon, since to acknowledge its truth would form unrepairable fissures on the foundation of modern materialism. Charles Tart, who has been at the forefront of research into parapsychology, speculates that this resistance may be rooted in a subtle, even subconscious, fear that if the soul survives death, one may be judged for a life that was not very good. The “materialist position,” he speculates, “is marvelously psychologically appealing because it rejects this belief.”21 Whatever the underlying reasons may be for such fierce opposition (and one must be careful not to psychologize away the beliefs of one’s intellectual opponents, since comparable lines of reasoning could be applied to oneself), scientific materialists have to their advantage the support of institutions of higher learning where their own convictions regarding the structure of reality form the official creed.
The second group is made up of, for lack of a better term, religious exclusivists—those for whom truth and salvation are only to be found in their fullness in their own faiths. Particularly challenging for them is that the sacred imagery and topography of the afterlife do not conform to the symbolic repertoire of a single religion—their own—but reflect instead the diverse landscapes of the world’s many wisdom traditions. Typically, near-death experiencers experience symbols drawn from the religions closest to home. A Jew may find himself being judged by rabbinic authorities, a Hindu might be saved by Krishna, a Catholic might find herself in the presence of the Virgin Mary or Christ, and a person of indigenous origin may receive knowledge at the hands of his own ancestors. Black Elk (d. 1950), after passing out in his youth, had an NDE in which he was shown a First Nations mandala, with a circular hoop, the four directions, and the center of the world on an axis stretching from the sky to the earth. This was accompanied by the sight of horses galloping around lightning and thunder. Upon being escorted to a council where he was introduced to six grandfathers seated on clouds, he received a special power from each one of them. “I saw more than I can tell and I understood more than I saw,” he recalled, “for I was seeing in a sacred manner the shapes of all things in the spirit, and the shape of all shapes as they must live together like one being.” Later, when he revealed the NDE to a medicine man, he was helped to ritually reenact the vision, after which he was able to assume the vocation of a shaman and medicine man himself. Black Elk had another NDE many years after the first one, in which he received prophecies about the fate of his people that came to pass.22
Curiously, exclusivists are sometimes pleased with the NDEs of their own coreligionists because they appear to corroborate (or at least come close to corroborating) their own eschatological beliefs. Yet they are troubled by the NDEs of outsiders, particularly because only in the rarest instances are they guided to adopt the exclusivists’ religion. Cross-cultural conversions in the immediate aftermath of NDEs seem, in fact, to be few and far between. When they do occur, it is usually after a period of reflection and soul-searching, during which the near-death experiencer might try to find a religion or spiritual tradition that will allow him or her to embody most fully the teachings drawn from the experience. In these scenarios, conversions are not the direct but the indirect result of the NDE. A perusal through the innumerable NDE accounts available both in print and online makes it clear that NDE testimonials do not identify a single religion that humanity as a whole must follow or would even be better off following. When Howard Strom inquired, “Which religion is best?”, the angels informed him, to his surprise, “The one that brings you closest to God.” The implication was that different religions may do that for different people. Strom himself decided to become a Unitarian minister because he was rescued from demons by Christ. At the same time, the theology he developed after his NDE was deeply universal in character. This naturally presents a problem for exclusivists of any stripe, whose ecumenical sympathies (if any) intended to foster peaceful relations between religions are usually confined to the social and political spheres and do not extend into the domains of theology and eschatology. When the Protestant philosopher William Lane Craig, an intelligent and nuanced voice for the evangelical movement, was asked in an interview about his opinion regarding NDEs, his answer was that they could not be taken at face value because they conflicted with the normative biblical understanding of the afterlife, most notably the physical resurrection, which for Craig could only take place after the second coming of Jesus.23
Some exclusivists may even resort to the argument (common in interreligious polemics) that the visionary experiences of religious outsiders are diabolical, while their own are divine. This view may account for the supernatural components of the NDE that cannot be explained through conventional materialistic models of the mind, but it begs the question of why the NDEs of one community should be accepted while those of another should be rejected. Either they should be accepted across the board or summarily dismissed, if for no other reason than consistency. Certainly the “enhanced intuitive sensitivity” near-death experiencers claim to experience after being brought back from death––enhancement in clairvoyance, telepathy, precognition, and other psychic abilities––cuts across the board and effects everyone, without discrimination.24 Another problem with contesting the NDEs of outsiders is that one has to produce a coherent explanation to account for the profound ethical and spiritual transformations brought about in their aftermath, since near-death experiencers often become more conscientious, selfless, and sympathetic in the wake of their experience, and their doubts about God, the soul, and the afterlife (if they had any) usually disappear.25 In other words, the same experience that may lead to a significant deepening of faith, or at least an understanding of it, for an insider may lead to analogous, though not necessarily identical, developments in an outsider.
When we consider the inability of the prevailing theologies of organized religions in the West to comprehensively explain some of the defining features of the NDE, it is not surprising to find that many near-death experiencers from Europe, North America, and Australia tend to develop an ambivalent attitude toward institutionalized religion. At the same time, their interest, both theoretical and practical, in the content of religion grows. To quote one authority, “If religious affiliation declines, people also report an increase in religiosity, and a greater interest in spirituality, meditation, prayer and surrender.”26 At least some of the research so far has found that while church attendance and the value ascribed to organized religion may diminish among near-death experiencers, prayer, meditation, the quest for spiritual values, and the search for guidance may increase.27 While comparable studies have yet to be undertaken of Muslim near-death experiencers, the limited testimonials available suggest that religion should play an integral role in the near-death experiencers’ lives. Halil from Turkey was informed by his grandfather that he had to return so his “daughter would never lose her religion.” And in a Pakistani physician’s story published in the Urdu magazine Al-Balagh, the message he was given during his NDE included instructions to guard the “rights of God” and see to it that his sustenance remained halal—that is to say, within the bounds of Islamic law.28 In the account of an Iraqi colonel whose NDE took place in 1966, men dressed in white robes inquired, before sending him back, why he continued to neglect his salah (ritual prayers).29
Now, one might be tempted to see in this apparent dichotomy simply a reflection of the differing attitudes toward religion in the Islamic world and the West, and therefore proof that the phenomenon has its point of genesis in our collective cultural perspectives. The “cultural source theory,” incidentally, has also been used in secular scholarship to explain away the transcendental foundations of religion. With respect to NDEs, however, such a line of reasoning ignores aspects of the experience that seem to bolster claims to their objective reality, as extensively documented in the research of Elizabeth Kubler-Ross, Kenneth Ring, Diane Powell, Penny Sartori, Charles Tart, and numerous others. It also overlooks the fact that behind the slightly varying attitudes toward the role and function of institutional religion found in NDE testimonials, there are some underlying cross-cultural uniformities, and these may well form an “invisible geometry”––to use another expression of Huston Smith30—that binds together our religious and spiritual history as a species. In other words, when NDEs are comparatively examined, a metaphysical substrate of beliefs emerges that only an extreme reductionism could ignore.31 And at the center of these lies a common set of doctrines that includes the recognition of an unseen world vastly more real than our own, the fleeting nature of our embodiment on earth, the continuity of consciousness after death, the existence of a soul, a final accounting, a just order, the ethical seriousness of our choices, the need for charity and self-transcendence, and beyond it all what one might simply term the “Absolute” or the “One” (whose salient qualities are love, compassion, and mercy).”
Can Religion Accept the Near-Death Experience?
It should be clear by now that, for the modern theologian (of any religious persuasion), the NDE stands as a doubled-edged sword in that it presents both promises and challenges. On the one hand, the central tenets of religion appear to be corroborated through the experience insofar as we are dealing with the metaphysical substrate of religious belief. This can be particularly valuable for those struggling with questions of meaning and purpose in a largely post-religious, secular culture, such as in the West, where faith is often equated with unintelligence and where the Hydra of nihilism lurks behind the corner of theoretical materialism (the dogma of the age)––a danger intuited through an almost prophetic foresight by Nietzsche more than a century ago. On the other hand, no religion’s unique creed is cross-culturally confirmed. In other words, no particular religion is singled out as the one humanity as a whole must follow, at least not if we are to consider the collective testimonies of near-death experiencers. This naturally presents an impasse for religious thinkers, especially those who take the particular truth claims of their own faiths in their normative, mainstream formulations seriously. Wherein lies the solution, if there be one at all?
At risk of simplifying matters, there appear to be two possible responses to the dilemma at hand. One might, drawing on the explanatory model of materialists, reject the NDE altogether as a hallucinatory byproduct of the dying brain. The problem with this line of reasoning, however, is that analogous arguments are usually used to dismiss the experiences of the founders of the religion, and beyond that, to dismiss most encounters with the unseen world (¢ālam al-ghayb). The approach also overlooks the growing body of evidence that suggests NDEs are in some cases verifiable forays into the posthumous states of human consciousness. The other option is to accept their veridicality but within the hermeneutic framework of a religious universalism that can respect and even acknowledge the legitimacy of
the experiences of theological others. But, for Muslims at least, is such an approach possible within the constraints of Islam? Expressed differently, does the faith have within itself the conceptual resources for a theology that can integrate and make sense of the other’s NDE on its own terms?
The answer, it would appear, is that it does, but the foundations for such a theology of difference would have to be drawn not so much from conventional classical sources as from the meditations of those philosophers and mystics, ranging from Ibn al-¢Arabī to Mullā Śadrā, who explored in great detail the nature of symbolism, imagination, and most importantly the mundus imaginalis or imaginal world (¢ālam al-khayāl) alluded to in the introduction.32 This was a world that for them stood as an intermediary or in-between zone (the barzakh), between the ineffable divine essence and our own world of senses. It was a world we would enter into after death. It was a world that some encountered while alive through mystical experience or the veridical dream. And it was a world where truth assumed a variety of forms, in keeping with the receptivity of the soul. The precise formulation of such an Islamic theology of the NDE, at the center of which would have to lie a refined understanding of imagination (khayāl), would have to be articulated in light of a more thorough analysis of current NDE research, as well as the trajectory it takes in the years to come, not to mention a creative reflection over the full range of possibilities offered to us by the primary and secondary sources of the Islamic tradition itself. In fact, such a theology would even hold the promise of being more comprehensive than the relatively unidimensional ones produced by at least some of those working in the field of near death studies, who have no background in the rich history of religion and mysticism, who rely largely on accounts of only the first stages of entry into the afterlife by modern Western near-death experiencers, and who occasionally speak of reality in the same absolutist and dogmatic terms that they criticize religious exclusivists for using.
Despite the relative comprehensiveness with which Ibrahim Kreps dealt with the subject of Muslim NDEs in his own learned essay, he glossed over the deeper religious questions raised by the phenomenon. In some respects, this is not surprising, as there do not seem to be, to date, any serious engagements from within the faith communities of the doctrinal ramifications of NDEs, especially with respect to eschatology. Carol Zaleski wrote more than thirty years ago that “academic circles have not seen much theological debate over the implications of near-death research.”33 While her observations seem just as relevant today as when she first made them, this state of affairs cannot last long, in light of the growing global popularity of NDE testimonials, as well as the promises and challenges they present to the world’s religions.