Medizinische Forschung zu Tod und Bewusstsein: Interview mit Pim van Lommel vom 2. August 2017

Das Herz steht still, die Atmung ist ausgefallen. Die Diagnose lautet: klinisch tot. Kann man in einem solchen Zustand noch etwas wahrnehmen? Ja, sagt der Kardiologe Pim van Lommel. Denn sehr viele Menschen, die aufgrund einer ernsten Erkrankung, eines Herzstillstands oder eines Unfalls an der Schwelle zum Tod standen, berichten nach ihrer Genesung von außergewöhnlichen Bewusstseinserfahrungen: Sie nahmen eine wunderschöne Landschaft und ein heilsames Licht wahr und empfanden unbeschreibbare Glücksgefühle. Sie sahen sich selbst von oben und konnten nachher über Details der Umgebung Auskunft geben – und dass trotz ihrer Bewusstlosigkeit. Das paradoxe Ereignis von erhöhtem Bewusstsein wird heute ›Nahtoderfahrung‹ (NTE) genannt. Aber auf der Basis unserer aktuellen medizinischen Konzepte ist es nicht möglich, Bewusstsein bei Herzstillstand nach Beendigung von Blutkreiskauf und Atmung zu erfahren. Wie ist das trotzdem möglich? Pim van Lommel fand heraus, dass das Bewusstsein nicht an einen funktionierenden Körper gebunden sein muss. Es gibt gute Gründe dafür anzunehmen, dass unser Bewusstsein nicht immer mit dem Funktionieren unseres Gehirns übereinstimmt. Van Lommels These lautet: Das Gehirn fungiert nur als Empfänger eines endlosen Bewusstseins, das nach dem Tod nicht aufhört zu existieren. Denn selbst wenn das Gehirn nachweislich nicht mehr funktioniert, können Menschen über ein klares Bewusstsein verfügen. Seine Erkenntnisse sind spektakulär und zwingen uns, über Leben und Tod und über die bisher üblichen Erklärungsmodelle der Beziehung zwischen Gehirn und Bewusstsein neu nachzudenken.In this interview, Pim van Lommel argues that according to our current medical concepts it is not possible to experience consciousness during a cardiac arrest when circulation and breathing have ceased. But during the period of unconsciousness due to a cardiac arrest or coma, patients may report the paradoxical occurrence of enhanced consciousness, with cognitive functions, with emotions, with self-identity, with memories from early childhood and sometimes with perception out and above their lifeless body. This is called a ›Near-Death Experience‹ (NDE). In a prospective study on NDE by Pim van Lommel, as published in The Lancet, it could not be shown that physiological (anoxia), psychological, pharmacological or demographic factors could explain the cause and content of these experiences. According to this study, the current materialistic view of the relationship between the brain and consciousness held by most physicians, philosophers, and psychologists is too restricted for a proper understanding of this phenomenon. Pim van Lommel argues that there are now good reasons to assume that our consciousness does not always coincide with the functioning of our brain. As he elaborates in this interview, van Lommel has come to the inevitable conclusion that most likely the brain must have a facilitating and not a producing function to experience consciousness. By making a scientific case for consciousness as a nonlocal and thus ubiquitous phenomenon we must question a purely materialist paradigm in science. Moreover, recent research on NDE seems to be a source of new insights into the possibility of a continuity of our consciousness after physical death

JNDS, Volume 24, Number 3

Review of the book "Talking with Angel: About Illness, Death, and Survival" written by Evelyn Elsaesser-Valarino about the experience of a young girl with a life-threatening disease

JNDS, Volume 30, Number 2

Abstract: In two recent publications, one by Dean Mobbs and Caroline Watt and the other by Kevin Nelson, I was surprised to find my and my colleagues' 2001 article in the Lancet misrepresented. In this Editorial, I attempt to correct those misrepresentations and to discuss them with regard to responsible scholarship in the ongoing debate in the professional literature about the relationship of mind and brain

Setting the Record Straight: Correcting Two Recent Cases of Materialist Misrepresentation of My Research and Conclusions

ABSTRACT: In two recent publications, one by Dean Mobbs and Caroline Watt and the other by Kevin Nelson, I was surprised to find my and my colleagues' 2001 article in the Lancet misrepresented. In this Editorial, I attempt to correct those misrepresentations and to discuss them with regard to responsible scholarship in the ongoing debate in the professional literature about the relationship of mind and brain

Near–death experiences. A theological interpretation

Stories about near-death experiences (NDEs) draw much attention from the general public and are extensively discussed by medical doctors and neuroscientists. However, though eschatology belongs to their core business, only few theologians participate in the debate. This article proposes a theological interpretation of NDEs as ‘private revelations’. I first give a critical analysis of the development of the modern, allegedly ‘scientific’, concept of NDE. This concept changes concrete personal testimonies into statistical data that are used as scientific evidence for the existence of an immortal soul. Next, the main criticisms against this concept from neurosciences, study of mysticism and philosophy of mind are discussed. Finally, I argue that ‘private revelation’ is a useful model for a theological understanding of NDEs and that an analogy from Thomas Aquinas’ view on prophetic dreams can help to account for the specific circumstance of imminent death. The interpretation I propose can do justice to the impression NDEs make on people, but can also accept and meet some of the most important criticisms raised against the modern concept of NDEs