Click here to support the Daily Grail for as little as $1/month on Patreon
out of body experience

Science Claims OBE’s Solved, Yet Again! But Is It Really?

So here we go again; popular science media outlets are declaring the phenomena of Out-of-Body Experience to be solved, based on a study of what can only be described as a proximal experience in the laboratory.

I’m talking about the way science news journalists like to spin the results of any experiment involving OBE’s or NDE’s (near-death experience), so that the conclusions seem to fit the mainstream narrative that such experiences are simply illusory products of brain activity.  To be perfectly clear, I’m not saying that they aren’t illusory experiences, nor am I saying that they’re factually genuine.  What I am saying is that the quoted studies do not, cannot support that specific claim.  This is an old complaint from me, but I’ll happily illustrate why yet again.

A group of neuroscientists from Sweden published a paper on April 30 in the journal Current Biology, which explains a set of experiments they undertook to image brain activity using an fMRI machine, of patients who were experiencing an induced out-of-body illusion.  The stated goal of their research was to identify and study the areas in the brain that are responsible for or are related to body-ownership and spatial awareness.  As they note in the abstract, no one has ever looked at how those concepts, and the brain structures involved with those concepts – parietal and medial temporal cortices – might be involved in experiences similar to OBE’s.

According to their paper, they were able to identify activity in certain structures, namely the hippocampus and intraparietal cortices, among others, that bears a strong correlation to our sense of body ownership, and spatial cognition.  They specifically claim that the posterior cingulate cortex plays a key role in the integration of spatial awareness and body-ownership.  This research could potentially be significant in the treatment of certain mental disorders such as schizophrenia and certain forms of epilepsy.

But there is a very important part of this study that’s being misrepresented by news outlets, specifically by Live Science.

In order to achieve a brain-state in their tests subjects that can be thought of as similar to that which is present during an OBE, the researchers had to create a perceptual illusion using cameras and mirrors, which caused the subject to perceive their body in abnormal spatial orientations.  Admittedly, that seems logically similar to what OBE reporters claim to be their experience.  However, these researchers, and those reporting their findings are glossing over the very real and very important assumption that lies at the heart of that similarity.

Is the brain activity associated with the induced illusion of an abnormal spatial orientation the same as the brain activity of someone who is undergoing an Out-of-Body Experience?  It’s conceivable that they are, but that connection has not been proven by this paper.

To make matters worse, the Live Science writer in question didn’t even provide a direct link to the paper in question so that readers could, and would be encouraged to, go look at the results themselves, rather than taking that one writer’s word for it.

If you’ll recall last year, the science magazine Frontiers published a story about the “study” of a Canadian woman who claimed that she can, in the manner of an OBE, leave her body at will.  The story painted the picture of a clinical trial involving fMRI scans of her brain while she thought she was out of her body.  Though, as I pointed out in that case as well, the assumption that what she was experiencing, or claimed she was experiencing, was in fact the result of an OBE was completely overlooked in the story.  To make matters worse in that case, the story was actually just a story.  It was the anecdotal telling of how one researcher put this self-proclaimed OBE’er through a single fMRI scan and then interpreted the results of that scan as they saw fit, with no controls, methodology, or clear goals in mind.  And, predictably, science news reporters lapped up the narrative and ran with it as though this is how science is done.

In light of these two cases and the clear bias they highlight in science reporting, is it really any wonder so many people don’t trust this entity, this persona called Science, any further than they can throw it?  Don’t get me wrong, I loath science denial as much as unfounded science worship, but this kind of blatant bias, which at times seems to be calculated and deliberate, is almost enough for me to change sides, at least for a little while.

Editor - Author
  1. thanks martin, a fine
    thanks martin, a fine piece.
    i appreciate your agnosticism (for lack of a better word) and your capacity to call bs where you see it.

  2. I can’t stop thinking about this…
    I laid awake almost all night thinking about this. Remember, I don’t get out much.

    I think the reason it bothers me so much is that building a study that would actually test these things would be such a simple endeavour. It might not be cheap, nor would it be completed quickly, but it’s not a complicated thing.

    I actually envisioned the entire thing in my insomnial stupor, which should highlight just how easy it would be for a team of professional researchers.

    I’m still shaking my head.

  3. We have gained a tremendous
    We have gained a tremendous amount from science. And the repeated patterned testing and replication that goes along with it. I don’t think many of us would be alive today if not for this methodology and practice. I agree completely with Greg’s frustrations about this particular study, but I also can understand the need (and strong desire) for materialist science to hang on to the precious paradigm of our day. Stepping forward, even a positive step, is never easy.

  4. Real
    For someone that has a genuine OBE or NDE, there are more real than real, so these artifices are so silly.

    We are multi dimensional beings living in a multidimensional universe. What is that so hard to accept.

    When I’ve had OBE they’ve been fucking mind blowing.

    1. Where’s the Like Button?
      I would have clicked on “like” for Flexiverse’s comment if there had been a suitable button. You’ve either experienced a conscious OOBE or not. If you have, it makes no difference what anyone else might believe about them; f— anyone who denies their reality — they know nothing.

      Science as presently constituted is unable to “do inner,” regardless of the endless applications it has enabled. A science that could “do inner” might have to be called something else; it would be quite different from present science, with quite different fundamental assumptions. Possibly, what we know as contemporary science would be termed “traditional science,” consigned to a special case.

      1. The Science is Important…
        You’re right, it doesn’t make any difference what anyone else thinks about someone’s personal experience, but that’s not the end of the story. It’s important for science to gain an understanding of what’s happening during OOBE’s and NDE’s. It could help a lot of people, and answer a lot of questions, both medically and philosophically.

        So it’s really a little counter-productive to simply dismiss these efforts as a waste of time, suggesting that science has no right to tread on the “inner”.

        The study I mentioned is one of a host of attempts to breach that divide, and though the news outlets certainly didn’t help the cause, the researchers involved did good work. They just have to take another step.

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