Monroe Institute Research Files: Out-of-Body Experience

Six Studies of Out-of-Body Experiences Charles T. Tart, Ph.D. Institute of Tanspersonal Psychology, Palo Alto, CA University of California at Davis ABSTRACT Because of confusion between science and scientism, many peo ple react negatively to the idea of scientific investigation of near-death ex periences (NDEs), but genuine science can contribute a great deal to understanding NDEs and helping experiencers integrate their experiences with everyday life. After noting how scientific investigation of certain para psychological phenomena has established a wider world view that must take NDEs seriously, I review six studies of a basic component of the NDE, the out-of-body experience (OBE). Three of these studies found distinctive physi ological correlates of OBEs in the two talented persons investigated, and one found strong evidence for veridical, paranormal perception of the OBE location. The studies using hypnosis to try to produce OBEs demonstrated the complexity of a simple model that a person's mind is actually at an out-of-body location versus merely hallucinating being out, and require us to look at how even our perception of being in our bodies is actually a com plex simulation, a biopsychological virtual reality. Many people who hear about near-death experiences (NDEs) wish they could have that experience and that knowledge-without want ing to have the hard part of coming close to death, of course! As P. M. H. Atwater (1988) and others have documented, however, it is often not a simple matter of starting out "ordinary," having an "ex traordinary experience," and then "living happily ever after." Years Charles T. Tart, Ph.D., is Professor of Psychology at the Institute of Transpersonal Psychology in Palo Alto, CA; Professor Emeritus of Psychology at the University of California at Davis; and Senior Research Fellow at the Institute of Noetic Science. This manuscript is based on an Invited Address presented at the International Association for Near-Death Studies North American Conference, Oakland, CA, August 8-10, 1996. Reprint requests should be addressed to Dr. Tart at the Institute for Transpersonal Psychology, 744 San Antonio Road, Palo Alto, CA 94303. Journal of Near-Death Studies, 17(2) Winter 1998 C 1998 Human Sciences Press, Inc. 73 74 JOURNAL OF NEAR-DEATH STUDIES of confusion, conflict, and struggle may be necessary as experiencers try to make sense of the NDE and its aftermaths, and to integrate this new understanding into their lives. Part of that struggle and integration takes place on transpersonal levels that are very difficult to put into words, part on a more ordinary level of questioning, changing, and expanding one's world view. I shall use the term "transpersonal" rather than "spiritual," as it has a more open conno tation to it, whereas spiritual is usually associated with particular, codified belief systems. As I have worked primarily as a scientist for the last 35 years, I will start by discriminating between genuine science and scientism, and then describe six studies of out-of-body experiences (OBEs) I have carried out and some of the conclusions I have come to that may be helpful in furthering understanding and integration. Science and Scientism in the Modern World We live in a world that has been miraculously transformed by sci ence and technology. This is very good in some ways, not in others. One negative aspect of particular concern is that this material pro gress has been accompanied by a shift in our belief systems that is unhealthy in many ways, including a partial crushing of the human spirit by scientism. Note carefully that I said scientism, not science. I am a scientist, which I consider a noble calling that demands the best from me, and I am very much in favor of using genuine science to help our understanding in all areas of life, including the spiritual. Scientism, on the other hand, is a perversion of genuine science. Sci entism in our time consists of a dogmatic commitment to a materi alist philosophy that "explains away" the spiritual rather than actually examining it carefully and trying to understand it (Wellmuth, 1944). Since scientism never recognizes itself as a belief system, but always thinks of itself as true science, confusion between the two is pernicious. Genuine science is a four part, continuing process that is always subject to questioning, expansion, and revision. It is a process that begins with a commitment to observe things as carefully and honestly as you can. Then you think about what your observations mean; that is, you devise theories and explanations, trying to be as logical as possible in the process. The next, third step is very important. Our minds are wonderfully clever, so clever that they can "make sense" CHARLES T. TART 75 out of almost anything with hindsight, that is, come up with some sort of plausible interpretation of why things happened the way we observed them to. But just because our theories and explanations seem brilliant and logical does not mean that we really understand the world we observed; we could have a wonderful post hoc ration alization. The third part of the genuine scientific process is a re quirement that you keep logically working with, refining, and expanding your theories, your explanations, and then make predic tions about new areas of reality that you have not yet observed. You have observed the results of conditions A, B, and C, for example, and come up with a satisfying explanation as to why they happened. Now develop your theory to predict what will happen under condi tions D, E, and F, and then go out and set up those conditions and see what actually happens. If you have successfully predicted the outcomes, then you keep developing your theories. But if your pre dictions do not come true, your theories may need substantial revi sion or need to be thrown out altogether. It does not matter how logical or brilliant or elegant or emotionally satisfying your theories are; they are always subject to this empirical test with new observations. Indeed, a theory that has no empirical, testable consequences may be philosophy or religion or personal be lief, but it is not a scientific theory. Thus science has a built-in rule to help us overcome our normal human tendency to get emotionally committed to our beliefs. This is where scientism corrupts the genu ine scientific process. Because people caught in scientism have an emotional attachment to a totally materialistic view of the world, they will not really look at data like NDEs that imply a spiritual, nonmaterial side to reality. They do not recognize that their belief that everything can be explained in purely material terms should be treated like any scientific theory; that is, it should be subject to con tinual test and modified or rejected when found wanting. This requirement of continual testing, refinement, and expansion is part of the fourth process of genuine science, namely open, full, and honest communication about all the other three aspects. You share your observations, theories, and predictions so that colleagues can test and extend them. You as an individual may have blind spots and prejudices, but it is unlikely all your colleagues have the same ones; so that a gradual process of refinement, correction, and expan sion takes place and scientific knowledge progresses. While this proc ess is genuine science, it is also a quite sensible way of proceeding in most areas of life. 76 JOURNAL OF NEAR-DEATH STUDIES Inadequacy of Scientism in Dealing with NDEs Now let us apply these thoughts about science and scientism to NDEs. Scientism, a dogmatic materialism masquerading as science, dismisses the NDE from the outset as something that cannot be what it seems to be, namely, a mind or soul traveling outside the physical body, either in the physical world or in some nonphysical world. So the NDE is automatically dismissed as a hallucination or, more likely, as some kind of psychopathology. But what if we practice actual sci ence and look, with a view as objective as possible, at experiences like the NDE without prejudging them as impossible? First, there are the data from a hundred years of scientific para psychological research that, using the best kind of scientific method ology, show us that we cannot simply dismiss the NDE out of hand as impossible. A world view that countenances such dismissal is ig norant, prejudiced, or both. Hundreds of experiments have shown that the human mind can sometimes do things that are paraconceptual to our understanding of physical reality; that is, they make no sense given our current understanding of physics and reasonable extensions of it, but they happen anyway. They are empirical realities. The four major psychic phenomena, collectively referred to as psi phenomena, that are well established are telepathy, clairvoyance, precognition, and psychoki nesis (PK). Sometimes a person can detect what is happening in an other's mind (telepathy), detect what is happening at a distance in the physical world when it is not currently known to another mind (clairvoyance), predict the future when in principle it is not predict able (precognition), or affect physical processes just by willing them to be changed (PK). The reality of these psi phenomena requires us to expand our world view from a world that is only material to one that also has mind as some kind of independent reality in itself, ca pable sometimes of doing things that transcend ordinary physical limits (Tart, 1977a). So if in an NDE a person feels outside her or his body, or claims to have acquired information about distant events, for example, it may be an illusion in a particular case, but you cannot scientifically say it must be illusion. You have to examine the actual experience, the data, not ignore it or prejudicially "explain it away" without really paying attention or being logical. Thus psi phenomena give us a wider view of reality that calls for a careful look at NDEs, rather than dismissal out of hand. CHARLES T. TART 77 Out-of-Body Experiences: Definition Since the beginning of my career, I have been fascinated by what used to be a very little known phenomenon, the out-of-body experi ence (OBE). While the term OBE is sometimes used rather sloppily, I defined more than two decades ago what I called the classical out of-body experience, or d-OBE-the "discrete out-of-body experience." This is the experience where subjects perceive themselves as exper ientially located at some other location than where they know their physical body to be. In addition, they generally feel that they are in their ordinary state of consciousness, so that the concepts of space, time, and location make sense. Further, there is a feeling of no con tact with the physical body, a feeling of temporary disconnection from it. An NDE, on the other hand, usually has, speaking in an oversim plified way, two major aspects. First is the locational component, the OBE component: you find yourself located somewhere outside your physical body. Second is the noetic and altered state of consciousness (ASC) component: you know things not knowable in ordinary ways and your state of consciousness functions in quite a different way as part of this knowing. I separate these components as they do not always go together. You can have an OBE while feeling that your consciousness remains in its ordinary mode or state of functioning. If right this minute, for example, your perceptions showed you that you were someplace else than where you know your body is, but your consciousness was functioning basically like it is right now, that is