And from the Wiki - citing some issues:Sure
The evidence is there. Some will follow it where it leads; some will take it to where they want it to be, in both cases, it’s a matter of freewill.
Do you have any knowledge of the "NDE" research?
Without any scientific study, near-death experiences “NDE" were previously assumed to be imagination, hallucination, or oxygen deficiency. This is no longer the case. NDE has been the subject of scientific research for few decades now. NDE studies showed that during the state of a lifeless body and without a functioning brain, an enhanced (non-local) consciousness, with unaltered self-identity was experienced. The observations are verified, documented and published in scientific journals. It cannot be disputed.
In 1988 the Dutch author Pim van Lommel launched a study of near-death experiences after cardiac arrest that was published in the medical journal the Lancet in 2001. In 2007, the first edition of his bestseller Consciousness Beyond Life: The Science of the Near-Death Experience, was published.
Pim van Lommel - Wikipedia
Neurobiologist Dick Swaab praised van Lommel's research for mapping patients’ experiences and opening up the subject of near-death experiences (NDEs) to the medical world. But he also claimed that Lommel's book ignores scientific knowledge, including some conclusions from his own research. He further argued that van Lommel does not refute neurobiological explanations, gives no scientific basis for his statements and borrows concepts from quantum physics without ground (quantum mysticism). According to Swaab, Van Lommel deviates from the scientific approach and Consciousness Beyond Life can only be categorized as pseudoscientific.
Jason Braithwaite, a senior lecturer in Cognitive Neuroscience in the Behavioural Brain Sciences Centre, University of Birmingham, issued an in-depth analysis and critique of van Lommel's prospective study published in the medical journal The Lancet, concluding that while Lommel's et al. study makes a useful contribution, it contains several factual and logical errors. Among these errors are van Lommel's misunderstandings and misinterpretations of the dying-brain hypothesis, misunderstandings over the role of anoxia, misplaced confidence in EEG measurements (a flat electroencephalogram (EEG) reading is not evidence of total brain inactivity), etc. Jason concluded with, "it is difficult to see what one could learn from the paranormal survivalist position which sets out assuming the truth of that which it seeks to establish, makes additional and unnecessary assumptions, misrepresents the current state of knowledge from mainstream science, and appears less than comprehensive in its analysis of the available facts."
In his book van Lommel also supported alleged psychic abilities of some NDErs. In a review, skeptic Donna Harris wrote the research was unreliable as it was taken from self-reported surveys and interviews and "since any type of paranormal or intuitive power remains unproven, it is troubling that the author doesn’t question these abilities, and just includes them as accepted facts."