Eben Alexander

Esquire Exposé on Proof of Heaven Author Eben Alexander Distorted the Facts of the Case

Near-death experiencs (NDEs) were in the news for all the wrong reasons last month, with journalist Luke Dittrich’s ‘exposé’ of bestselling author and NDEr Eben Alexander in Esquire spreading far and wide across the internet. Dittrich painted Alexander as a medical professional of dubious reputation (on the basis of several malpractice suits) who was more than a bit ‘creative’ when it came to the facts of his case.

In my original story about the Esquire exposé I urged some caution in taking it all at face value, and in a follow-up piece noted one example of how Dittrich himself seems to have a been a bit ‘creative’ (or at least selective) in quoting the Dalai Lama about Alexander’s case. But NDE researcher Robert Mays has gone one step further and put a blowtorch to a number of the claims in the Esquire article (PDF), and discovered that it seems to have distorted the facts of the case. Along with the out-of-context Dalai Lama statements that I covered, Mays gives statements from a number of those involved that corroborate facts which Dittrich claims were fictions by Alexander. Perhaps the most important of which is a statement by Dr. Laura Potter, who was used by Dittrich as the hammer to drive the final nail into the coffin of Eben Alexander’s credibility. Dittrich’s article squashes Alexander’s claim that he was essentially without a mind during his illness in the following words: “I ask Potter whether the manic, agitated state that Alexander exhibited whenever they weaned him off his anesthetics during his first days of coma would meet her definition of conscious. ‘Yes’, she says. ‘Conscious but delirious’.” But Mays says that Potter was in fact alarmed by the way her remarks were twisted, with the doctor making the following statement via email:

I am saddened by and gravely disappointed by the article recently published in Esquire. The content attributed to me is both out of context and does not accurately portray the events around Dr. Eben Alexander’s hospitalization. I felt my side of the story was misrepresented by the reporter. I believe Dr. Alexander has made every attempt to be factual in his accounting of events.

In the 15-page article, Robert Mays makes clear his dismay at what appears to be a long list of serious errors and/or misrepresentations made by Dittrich and Esquire, and further aggrieved by the fact that Esquire made a point of asking online readers to pay $1.99 because “great journalism isn’t free”. Mays concludes:

Dittrich’s article was irresponsible because of the impact — the real harm — the resulting distortions have caused. I am sure Luke Dittrich and his editors felt completely justified, based on what they felt was a solid case against Eben Alexander. They probably also considered the negative effect that Dittrich’s article and its conclusions would have on Alexander and others, and similarly felt justified. In their minds, Eben Alexander is a complete fraud and deserves to be exposed as such.

But did Luke Dittrich and his editors exercise sufficient care in building their case? In my opinion they did not: the facts presented in the article were distorted or completely wrong and the conclusions are totally unwarranted. And the result has been devastating to those people who know the facts and how utterly wrong they were portrayed in the article. They include all of the people I mentioned two paragraphs above, especially Dr. Laura Potter whose statements were misrepresented and distorted by Luke Dittrich to establish the central fact of his case. Even His Holiness the Dalai Lama would be quite dismayed that his warm, supportive statements to Eben Alexander have been so cleverly distorted into the exact opposite of his meaning.

But the person most harmed is Dr. Eben Alexander, whose reputation has been severely damaged on the basis of Dittrich’s erroneous, distorted judgments. From now on, many people will associate Eben Alexander with altering records, embellishment, fabrication and delusion.

Mays goes on to note the irony that Dittrich used the malpractice suits against Alexander to sow seeds of doubt about the surgeon’s character in his readers’ minds, and yet “Mr. Dittrich’s actions in investigating and writing the article and Esquire’s unabashed endorsement of it rise to the level of malpractice” themselves.

Link:Esquire article on Eben Alexander distorts the facts” (PDF)


  1. Damage is done
    Typical of these smearing campaigns, is that even though Esquire apologized for the severe transgressions in journalistic ethics their Alexander’s article went into, the damage is already done –most people will remember the initial article than the subsequent apology.

    1. Bite Me
      [quote=red pill junkie]Typical of these smearing campaigns, is that even though Esquire apologized for the severe transgressions in journalistic ethics their Alexander’s article went into, the damage is already done –most people will remember the initial article than the subsequent apology.[/quote]

      A prefect metaphor for mass media discourse in our times.

  2. This kind of thing is not
    This kind of thing is not good. I’m not one for religion myself, but I can’t stand this sort of hypocrisy. It’s like the recent skepticism article. All too often some self-appointed white knight points the finger and cries “charlatan”. But when you dig down, you find out that he isn’t promoting rationalism, he’s promoting himself. He’s a guy on the make. And a charlatan.

    1. The worst upshot of all this
      The worst upshot of all this is that we find ourselves in spite of ourselves adopting the simple minded dichotomies that such inquiries have been forced into by reckless, careless, and simplistic categorization. Calling people “Skeptics” and “Believers” is sort of like branding someone as a “communist” or “capitalist” in the 1950’s. as if there are no areas where the two overlap or converse congenially and thoughtfully.People like Randi are first and foremost dividers. They spend most of their time drawing lines in the sand and daring anyone to step across, and I think it is a calculated strategy to disable real inquiry. They are gatekeepers with ulterior motives.

      1. Religious vs Atheists
        It’s like that recent study that concludes atheists are on average smarter than religious folks. Well, what was the basis to determine what category you belong to? There are many people –including myself– that shun away from organized religions & don’t attend Sunday services, yet are open-minded to the possibility of some ulterior force behind the shaping of the Universe.

        Did they keep a third category for agnostics? a fourth category for spiritually-oriented individuals?

  3. Esquire pay wall
    > Esquire made a point of asking online readers to pay $1.99

    I got it for free. My browser add-ons blocked the scripts that generated the pay notice as well as the paywall itself.

    Quite a silly error by the site designers.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.