Abstract: 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.

Abstract: An article titled "A Prospectively Studied Near-Death Experience with Corroborated Out-of-Body Perceptions and Unexplained Healing" by Penny Sartori, Paul Badham, and Peter Fenwick was published in the Journal of Near-Death Studies in 2006. The authors concluded that the reported case strengthened "the cumulative experience derived from many other individual cases that suggest that our current models of consciousness must expand in order to provide and adequate explanation of NDEs" (p. 83). However, a closer examination of Sartori et al.'s paper raises significant questions about their methodology and interpretation of their findings. In particular, certain methodological weaknesses and possible interpretation biases undermine the paper's conclusions. This critique addresses both Sartori et al.'s original paper and relevant parts of Sartori's (2008) Ph.D. thesis published subsequently.

Michael J. Rush discusses Penny Sartori's response to his critiques of her article "A Prospectively Studied Near-Death Experience with Corroborated Out-of-Body Perceptions and Unexplained Healing."