English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

In this article, I respond to a critique by Michael Rush of a 2006 article from this Journal in which I and my co-authors described a case of a near-death experience with veridical components and an inexplicable healing. I address each point from the critique in the order in which it was raised. Overall, I found most of the criticism to have been points I had already addressed in previous publications, and the critique also provided my an opportunity to clarify a few points I had not previously detailed. For me, this professional exchange has served to underscore the difficulty of conducting methodologically sound prospective research on near-death experiences.

journal of near-death studies

Rejoinder to "Response to 'Critique of "A prospectively studied near-death experience with corroborated out-of-body perceptions and unexplained healing"'".