Please feel free to print out or "Save as... Text" this
article to your hard drive.
(Microsoft Explorer browsers may lose spacing between paragraphs.)
P.M.H.Atwater, L.H.D., Ph.D. (Hon.) P. O. Box 7691 Charlottesville, VA 22906-7691
© 2001 P.M.H.Atwater, L.H.D., Ph.D. (Hon.)
ABSTRACT: There has been occasion lately, especially with the "religious wars" debate between Michael Sabom, M.D. and Kenneth Ring, Ph.D., to question the research methodology and findings of long-term researchers in the field of near-death studies. Now, Harold A. Widdison, Ph.D. has questioned my work and how I arrived at the results that I did in my book, Children of the New Millennium. I address his concerns in this article, along with entertainment vs. education in the publishing industry, a question of protocol, determinants of value, judgment calls, and truth at risk issues we all must face as researchers in this new era of media/publishing conglomerates.
In the Summer 2001 issue of this Journal, two reviews were carried for my book, Children of the New Millennium. The first was by Thomas A. Angerpointner, M.D., Ph.D., a specialist in children's surgery in Munich, Germany; and the other was from Harold A. Widdison, Ph.D., a professor of sociology at Northern Arizona University. The former was supportive, perhaps excessively so, while the second was highly critical, raising questions that need answers. I welcome what is now happening in the field of near-death studies. None of the researchers in our field, me included, have been as unbiased with his or her work as claimed or believed. And I have been outspoken about this for years, in talks I have given, in articles (particularly one submitted to this Journal that has yet to make it through the Review Committee), and in Chapters 1, "The Birth of a Controversey," and 23, "But Are All the Claims True?" of The Complete Idiot's Guide to Near-Death Experiences. The forepart of Chapter 23 I devoted to the topic of re-search at the crossroads, as well as to the problems and challenges most of us have had to face to one degree or another - and where I believe we have succeed-ed in our stated goals and where we have fallen short. There is no question in my mind that the majority in our research community have done their best and have contributed mightily to an ever-growing body of re-search findings - that speak not only to the phenomenon of near-death but to the field of consciousness studies, itself and far too often at great personal cost. I consider myself privileged to be counted amongst such a roster. As the call to re-vise and reconsider previous work heightens, it is only fair and proper that I take my turn as the subject of rigorous criticism. I have wanted to "set the record straight" about the book Children of the New Millennium and about my research of child experiencers for some time. Thanks to Harold Widdison, I now have the op-portunity. Entertainment vs. Education in the Publishing Industry With the incredible success of Betty Eadie's first book (1992) and that of Dannion Brinkley (1994), the publishing industry discovered that a lot of money could be made from books by near-death experiencers who were not shy about dramatizing their stories. After the initial sales figures for Dannion's book were released, Beyond the Light, an in-depth study of adult experiencers of near-death states, came on the scene. Three weeks later, a representative of my book's publisher telephoned me. He said and I quote: "Because of the great success of Dannion Brinkley's book we have decided to cancel your five-city book tour and all scheduled promotions. Your book is too scientific. It will never sell." Beyond the Light was literally "dumped" within days of that call, selling for "peanuts" to a paperback publisher as "rack stock."
What happened to me was part of a growing "plague" that affected many of my fellow researchers. No more were the large publishing houses interested in books about near-death research unless the manuscript was short, snappy, and provocative. Several turned to "package" agents who could provide professional co-authors for the polish necessary to gain entre to better contracts and wider appeal, a move that enabled them to triumph in a less-than-friendly marketplace. This situation has accelerated over the years. Imagine then my great joy when a major house expressed interest in my study of child experiencers of near-death states. The manuscript, titled Second Birth, was delivered on time and as promised. The year was 1997. Marketing departments, not editors, now decide a publisher's interest; and it was the marketing department, in a sudden change of stragedy, that demanded that my book be rewritten as a sales pitch for the new millenium and either I cooperate or my contract would be canceled. For the first time since my near-death experiences in 1977, I went into a total, screaming rage then I headed for the lawyers. I found out that because of a technicality in my contract that both my agent and I had missed, the house could do what they said, even sue me for the return of my advance if I said no. In disbelief, I turned to prayer, and from that source of guidance I began to deal with the "demandments" I was given. These orders were specific: chapters and length of chapters to be cut almost in half, only declarative statements could be used (none of this "implies" or "suggests" type of language), quotes from parents were out, discarded as unimportant was the youngest case of a hellish experiencer I have yet found that of a nine-day-old infant who had to be revived after her heart stopped during surgery (thanks to the generosity of Barbara Rommer, M.D., a brief discussion of this case appears in the second printing of her book Blessing in Disguise, 2001, Epilogue section. And that wasn't all. I also had to weave into the text material about evolution and the "new children." Actually, the later wasn't all that difficult to do, as I already had explored the topic in the theoretical model I am building, entitled Brain Shift/Spirit Shift. Widdison's complaints about the declarative language I used in the book, my over-emphasis on evolutionary aspects, missing material that should have been included, and the overall tone to Children of the New Millennium are astute observations and absolutely correct. In consideration of what happened with the book, I comfort myself in the amount of material I was able to save. And that material is a range of cases and observations unlike anything else currently published in the field of near-death studies findings that deserve a closer look from the medical and psycho-analytical community.
A QUESTION OF PROTOCOL
I have never at any time called myself a scientist or presented myself as a scientist. Widdison is well-trained as a statistical analyst, even teaching the science at the university level. I bow to his expertise, for I have no such training. My police officer father was my teacher, beginning when I was nine years old and continuing off and on for three years. He was quite stern, and, I believe, deter-mined to create the world's most perfect "witness" in the sense of someone who had clear recall of passersby and of incident details. Actually, his training only added to the measures I had undertaken on my own after the "nightmare" I endurred in the first grade, as the only child in school who could see music, hear numbers, and smell color. Today, we know this condition as synesthesia (multiple sensing). Then, it was called lying. This state was complicated by the dyslexia I was born with and the stutters I developed after that first school year. My way of handling this situation was to cut off authority figures and develop ways whereby I could discover for myself what was true and what wasn't in the world around me. I never had the opportunity to attend college until long after I had begun researching near-death experiences, although I have immersed myself in countless classes. Granted, someone like Widdison or Kenneth Ring or Bruce Greyson or Melvin Morse can set up measurement studies and use the proper instrumentation that will produce a more scientific comparison of what can be found with near-death experiencers versus what shows up in the general population. Conclusions drawn from this effort appear to be solid; further testing by other researchers using the same method and finding the same results seems to establish validity. Thus, the double-blind/control-group/statistical-analysis study style is preferred. Except with consciousness. Research in this genre has, for the most part, failed to encompass the full import of what was to be examined, and I suspect for a single reason the scientific method is not designed to address an unknown range of variables.
In September of 2000, I was in the Chicago area thanks to Chicago-IANDS to give talks and workshops on my research, when I had occasion to speak at length with a medical researcher. He insisted that there were ways the scientific method could be used that would accommodate variables, and that until I listed all the data I had gleaned from every case I had ever had he would not accept my findings. When I read through the samples he gave me of his research, I was appalled to see how many "holes" there were in what he had done and how useless his results would be in the field of near-death studies. I left the meeting I had with him with the same sense I have had since Ken-neth Ring introduced me to the field in 1981 and told me about Raymond Moody and his book, Life After Life. And that sense is, only a multi-disciplined approach can truly reveal what the near-death phenomenon might tell us. How can we hold to protocols that overlook or miss observations that later prove to be important? Doesn't our search cover whatever we find, no matter how insignificant that may seem at the time? Isn't our goal in near-death research to view the phenomenon from 360 degrees? Must there be only certain ways this has to happen?
THE DETERMINANTS OF VALUE
Never in the 23 years I have been researching near-death states have I ever based any of my studies on a questionnaire. And the reason is, I don't trust questionnaires. I don't care how clever the researcher is or how tested are the ques-tions used, the language still leads. Yes, questionnaires can be helpful in testing memory and in determining range and content of involvement in the subject matter being investigated. And, yes, there are provisions in the methodology to account for those who lie or exaggerate. Yet none of this puts me at ease. Hence, I remain a fieldworker who holds one-on-one sessions, specializing in open-ended questions and observation of non-verbal cues and body language. I am very subtle in the way I work, seldom announcing myself or my intent so that I can be received as a curious and friendly person who simply listens. There was a time when I labeled myself as a researcher, made appointments, and held sessions. It didn't take me long to realize that by doing this I automatically set up barriers that created an atmosphere whereby the experiencer would either try to impress or test me. The more non-descript I became the more at ease the individ-ual felt. The more sincerity I projected non-verbally, the greater the flood was of information that poured forth. I did my best to keep to a style and technique anyone else could utilize, so my work could be replicated. I put my own experiences, what I learned from them and how my life was affected by them, on a "shelf" in the back of my mind so I could be fully present, objective, and clear. The research in Children of the New Millennium is based on my study of 277 child experiencers, not the questionnaire. I created the questionnaire for use with people I had already researched as a way to cross-check and challenge what they had previously told me. (I also sent it to experiencers I had not met just to see how they would handle the task of filling it out.) Many of the questions are indeed leading, and if taken out-of-context from the instrument itself, will appear to be rather foolish. The numerous sections in the questionnaire were designed to enfold on each other, constantly bringing the individual back to that moment of their near-death episode - pushing, probing, digging deeper. It's not the questions per se that sets the questionnaire apart, but, rather, the design itself and how it affects the one filling it out. Some said their initial response to the instrument was anger, like "How dare I ask such questions?", but once they completed it they found themselves rethinking what had happened to them and the extent to which their lives had changed. Not only did it take hours to fill out, for most it took days if not weeks. I declared the percentages gleaned from the questionnaire only because they so nearly matched what I had found in the larger group. And I said so in the book. I also admitted the one deviation I had found and that concerned those child experencers once grown who were employed in the fields of math/science/history. With the larger group it was 40%, from the questionnaire it was only 25%. All other aspects were compatible between the two groups, and because of this I felt it would be proper to list the questionnaire percentages as I did. The book, then, is a true study of 277 individuals, not just of the 44 child experiencers of near-death states who filled out the questionnaire. Although this is stated in the book, it is more clearly explained in the original version (an explanation removed in final editing). With adults and teenagers it is easier to check on the aftereffects, as before and after comparisons can be made. This cannot be done with little ones, especially infants and newborns. What I did to compensate for this was hold sessions with parents and relatives whenever possible (usually mothers and aunts). Men were not as accommodating, probably because in most cases child care was under the purview of the women. It was the families who verified how different their child was and how he or she seemed somehow not to fit into the family unit as did the other siblings. Nor did the children match genetic patterning going back several generations. This both puzzled and concerned the families I spoke with. Only in a few cases could I link the unusual jumps I found regarding intelligence and abstractions with traits already present in the family. Nothing would have come from my observations of child experiencers had it not been for a guest appearance I shared with Melvin Morse, M.D. on the NBC tele-vision program "The Other Side" in 1994. Morse was featured for his breakthrough book, Closer to the Light. Several children from his study were on stage with him to give their own unique version of what they had experienced. He left immediately afterwards, leaving me with the kids and their moms. The bunch of us piled into a vehicle and talked, non-stop, for some time. That is to say, they talked. I mostly just listened. And what I heard was complaint after complaint about what life was like now for both groups, in contrast to much of what Morse had claimed in front of the cameras. I asked them if they knew anything about the pattern of aftereffects typical to these experiences. They did not. My suggestion that they read Beyond the Light was coupled with my realiza-tion that these people were verifying what I had noticed since my beginnings as a researcher in 1978 but had never focused on that children differed markedly from adults in processing and integrating their near-death episodes. I tried numerous times to discuss this with Morse, and for several years running, but he never re-turned any of my calls or answered my letters. My hesitation in pursuing this centered around my lack of medical training and my inability to conduct the clinical tests I thought would be necessary. I finally tackled the project an in-depth study of child experiencers of near-death states thinking that whatever I found would inspire researchers with the "right" credentials to cross-check my findings. The real determinant of value, in this case, was the faith it took me to do the job.
JUDGMENT CALL
Throughout the 23 years I have spent researching near-death experiences, my loudest and strongest supporters have been the experiencers themselves. "You saved my life with your work" became an oft-repeated refrain, along with this admonition, "No other researcher is as thorough and as accurate as you are." In fact, it was experiencers attending IANDS meetings who labeled Coming Back to Life and Beyond the Light as the bibles of the near-death experience. Widdison is quite right in saying I do not follow the protocol others do and therefore it is difficult to really measure or judge my work. But I question his rea-soning that my books, and especially Children of the New Millennium, must be re-garded as hardly more than collections of mere anecdotes. What do we gain if our perfected research instruments describe the ins and outs of a phenomenon when a fuller and more detailed picture can be obtained by widening the lens of the "micro-scope" we use? Do I toss my findings because I cannot prove them the way others do? What about the experiencers themselves who testify as to worth? Take a look at some of the things I discovered: half of my research base could remember their birth; a third had prebirth memory and for most of them that memory began at about seven months in utero around the same time medical science tells us that the fetus can feel pain; males and females had equal jumps in spatial ability and intelligence; the majority of those with the greatest enhancement in mathematical ability also experienced an equal enhancement in musical prowess as if the regions for music and math in the brain (which are located next to each other) were accelerated together as a single unit; the younger the child when the experience occurred the more apt he or she was to abstract early and score in the range of genius when old enough to take an IQ test. And this is just a brief samp-ling. What are we to make of these observations? Ignore them? Linda Silverman, Ph.D., one of the foremost experts in the United States as concerns giftedness and the clinical research of genius in children, telephoned me after reading the book in question and said, "Your work verifies mine and my work verifies yours." She went on to say that about 80% of the children she had studied who had IQ scores over 160, had experienced serious birth trauma and had gone on to exhibit all of the aftereffects I had described as typical for child experiencers of near-death states as if they, too, had had such an episode. Because of my discovery that children are six times more likely than adults to repress their epi-sode, I find it reasonable that the pattern of aftereffects that can occur after a close brush with death or the cessation of vital signs can be used as an indicator to sug-gest that the child may possibly have had a near-death experience. And in connection with the statements I made about evolution and the Millennial Generation, I submit another quote from Silverman: "Even more remarkable, in the last month, I've come across children who are so far evolved beyond anything I've seen in my 4-decade career in this field that neither heredity nor en-vironment can explain their advancement, their wisdom, their sense of mission, their adult minds, or their moral development. The only explanation is evolution.
They must be what I am calling 'Evolutionary Outliers.'" (2000) Where did the experiencers come from in the various studies I have conducted? As I have stated many times before, the vast majority I met through pure happenstance. I was fortunate early-on to be employed by a telephone company who specialized in the installation of computerized switching units and switchboards at large businesses, hotels, and motels throughout the central, eastern, and southern states. I lived out of a suitcase for years. It mattered not where I was or what I was doing, nine chances out of ten the people nearby would turn out to be experiencers just waiting for someone with a big grin like mine to tell their story to. As an example of how bizarre this was, one day as I climbed into a taxi in downtown Washington, D.C., I was greeted by a fellow as black as ebony pointing his finger at my face and saying, "I can talk to you. You died like I did." I never said a word to this man, yet out tumbled details of him seeing medics trying to resuscitate his body after he died in an automobile accident and was freed to dance with angels. The experiencers I connected with in this manner were average Americana for the most part welders, teachers, taxi drivers, secretarys, ministers, farmers, construction workers, waiters, stock brokers, cooks, mothers and dads and kids of every age and stripe. A number were foreign born. They didn't know me and I didn't know them. Whenever possible I also spoke with their families, friends, and health-care providers. To augment this, I sent notices to various kinds of maga-zines and newsletters (some "new age," some health-care oriented, and some edu-cational in nature) to announce my project and my desire to find more experi-encers. Others were present in audiences during the days when I spoke of my own experiences. Once, just as an experiment, I went door-to-door in a residential area of a small town in Minnesota asking if anyone in the household had had a near-death experience. Two said yes. Over 70% of the medical practices used today came from observers such as myself who questioned, examined, probed, and listened, without benefit of scientific or statistical models. It takes more time when such techniques are used, and more effort and money, and measures necessary to cross-check are more involved and lengthy. Yet end results have stead the profession well and proved helpful. I talked to Kenneth Ring about this situation a few years back, and about a concern I had that no one had used my techniques to replicate my work or test my findings. (The one exception to this was Patti R. White, Ph.D. who validated some of my observations in a small study published in the Journal in 1997 as "The Ana-tomy of A Transformation: An Analysis of the Psychological Structure of Four Near-Death Experiences.") His answer saddened me: "Your part of a dying breed, dear. No one does things like you do anymore." TRUTH AT RISK Widdison objected to a particular notation that appeared on the back of my book. I never wrote those words and was frankly quite embarrassed by the manner my publisher chose to advertise the book. The same thing happened to Widdison himself when he and Craig Lundahl came out with The Eternal Journey. He had his publisher ship me a copy of the book for review. I had forgotten that I had promised to read it, so when the book came, supposedly unannounced, I took exception to the mailing. But I read it anyway, then promptly returned it. The book had what I thought were blatant errors in it and offered little of consequence to the field. His publisher supplied him with a copy of my refusal letter. My phone rang soon after. I apologized once he jiggled my memory about my promise to read the book. As it turned out, most of the errors I had objected so strongly to were actually hype created by his publisher to ensure sales. He said he would have the offensive material removed. Others supplied the endorsements he needed, but I wasn't one of them. I just couldn't in good conscience compliment a study I did not feel good about. I like Lundahl and Widdison, but I wonder if maybe my refusal to endorse their project might in some way be behind the strident tone of Widdison's critique of mine. During the first decade of my work, I was unable to understand or appreciate the criticism I received. I learned, however, that such negatives could be positives if I used them to improve what I was doing. That is why I am not upset with Wid-dison, and that is why I encourage other researchers to speak up as well. None of us should feel pressured to support what we disagree with; but neither should any of us be on the attack, put down, or threaten lawsuits just to assuage hurt egos. The stack grows of "authoritative" tomes which are little more than trash. Even some mediocre studies are praised beyond their worth. Differing viewpoints must always be encouraged, of course, but so must the honest assessments of knowledgeable parties. At times, even the best in our field have made statements that later proved to be an exaggeration or misleading. Case in point: what hap-pened with Betty Eadie's Embraced by the Light. Several researchers claimed that hers was the most complete and the most compelling near-death experience in history, which isn't true. There are many published cases which rival hers, and many more which have yet to be published. Since researchers do not share their files with each other, there is no way any of us can know which near-death experience is "the best." The claim that was made created an unfortunate oneupmanship that served no one, not even Eadie. Her book, however, was so beautifully done and the inspiration it contained so simply put, that it probably would have topped book sales ratings on its own merits. Sometimes it's the media who twists things around and in the name of sensationalism fashions its own brand of tall tales. Example: Moody's best seller. The list he gave in the book of elements commonly present in near-death experiences he never meant to become a model that identified the phenomenon itself, nor did he have any idea that his conclusions would be considered scientific evidence of life after death. He set the record straight in The Last Laugh. Over two decades later Bruce Greyson, editor of our Journal, was faced with complaints from the medical community saying that the so-called "classical model" is useless to them as a way to recognize and identify the near-death experiences of patients. To arrive at a definition that might be more dependable, he notified the rest of us, asking for our opinion. My version is in Chapter 1 of the Idiot's book. Not too long ago I asked him how things turned out. "Everyone had a different idea. There was no concensus." So here we are, headed toward the year 2002, and we have yet to produce a reliable criteria of what defines the phenomenon. What Moody conjectured in 1975 is still conjecture. Yet the public believes that what was originally described in Life After Life is gospel, and that belief has played out so many times and been "verified" by so many researchers that a cultural myth of international proportions has emerged. Decades must pass before the full effect of this myth can be known. A few researchers have now turned to the Internet to obtain cases. I have become quite leery of this, since one of my cases in Beyond the Light appeared al-most word-for-word under quite a different name in the writings of Kenneth Ring. Gracia Fay Ellwood was the one who caught the error. Red faces traced the mis-take back to a woman discovered via the website operated at the time by Jeffrey Long, M.D. and Trisha McGill. She had been interviewed in a follow-up contact and checked out as genuine, thus the recommendation to Ring that "here's a good one." When confronted with her lie, she confessed. This necessitated an embarrassed Ring having to take exceptional measures to have the fabrication removed from his book. Internet aside, I have encountered such a large number of people like this woman in the last five years, along with numerous experiencers interested more in protecting the copyright to their stories than participating in research, that I ex-pressed in several of my writings that I could not duplicate today what I had previously accomplished. Widdison disagrees with me, but I stand on my statement.
CONCLUSION
One of several determinants I used for assessing the possibility that an individual could have been in a state conducive to a near-death experience was the cessation of vital signs for a minute or more. I did not check that much with at-tending physicians as most had neither the time or interest to respond. The bulk of information I obtained came from relatives, nurses, and counselors, although on occasion I was able to view x-rays and read medical reports. I made no special notation for those who were without vital signs for an hour or more because I found enough of them that I did not consider the event extraordinary. This I stated as much in the Idiot's book. But when Greyson was fact-checking my article "The Birth of Near-Death" for Albemarle Magazine, he discovered that I had repeated this same observation in the text - so he called me on it. "Name them," he insisted. Because only a few names came to mind, I withdrew the statement. But the incident bothered me. I felt as if by backing away from the confrontation I had allowed a falsehood to be created. I had encountered exactly what I had claimed, yet my inability to prove this was frustrating. What I learned in reviewing my research shocked me: I have a bias that I never before realized that I had. And it's a big one. Just as with the vast majority of other near-death experiencers, I no longer have a fear of death. In my case, however, not only have I lost my fear of death, death itself no longer impresses me as anything other than a shift in perception. I am incapable of appreciating death's so-called finality. Because of this I treated in-dividuals who were without vital signs for five minutes, let's say, as equal in every way to those who revived in the morgue after being pronounced clincially dead one to two hours before. My focus centered instead on what was experienced and any aftereffects that might have resulted versus how this could compare with the indi-vidual's previous behavior. I made no attempt to record the identity of anyone "dead" for lengthy periods of time, only that they were. This is why I have consistently made little fuss about miraculous survivals. How critical this bias of mine will prove to be in future evaluations of the research I have done I cannot judge. It will be for others to decide. Actually, no matter how careful we are as researchers, surprise "glitches" do pop up, and this one is mine. The current climate in the publishing industry with the rise of media conglomerates is untenable to educating the public about valuable research findings. Plus what is published in peer-reviewed journals seldom trickles over to media channels except to supply fodder for ratings competition. Perhaps it's the flood of information assailing every possible conduit with the advent of our technological age that is the real cause of this, or maybe the greed of new media barons lies at the heart of the problem. I cannot be certain "which" or "other," but I have noticed that with researchers the main guarantor of attention hence book sales is what I call the "gee whiz" factor the "gee whiz" of having been personally transformed from the sheer magnitude of what was encountered during studies of near-death experiencers. To what degree does this factor bias conclusions? Is the bias I recognized of late in myself any different? And to what extent can we really cleanse our own field and judge each other? Example: on page 171 in the Bibliography of Morse's book Where God Lives (2000), there is no mention of any of my books - and there could have been as several others listed in that section were not clinical studies. Is Morse now the final arbiter of what constitutes "science" and what doesn't? On May 22, 2000, during my 22nd year of research, and while I was standing in prayer in front of The Holy of Holies in the Basilica of St. Joseph's Oratory, Mon-treal, Quebec, my third near-death experience unexpectedly reoccurred. Yes, those two cyclones inverted over each other in an hourglass shape, and where the two spouts should have touched but didn't there shot out piercingly powerful rays that laid bare the innerworkings of creation and consciousness, yes, that one it came back. Only this time I passed through the middle. And I have no descriptive words to offer of what I encountered except to say I was overwhelmed. Technically, the episode would be classified as a near-death-like experience as I was in perfect health and nothing threatened. Of my three near-death experiences, the third one haunted me the most and was the most traumatic in the sense that it stretched me beyond anything I could accommodate to as reality. And it is where "The Voice Like None Other" spoke, outlining the research I would later do. During this return episode the hard-driving, compulsively disciplined energy I was originally given was withdrawn. The energy that replaced it was softer, peaceful. It is almost as if one phase of the life I gained in dying has been completed and another begun. I know by admitting this that my objectivity and my involvement in the field of near-death studies will forever remain suspect. Perhaps that's just as well. The peace that now fills me leaves no room for the approval I once thought I needed.
__________________________________________________________________
References:
Angerpointner, Thomas A. (2001) Journal of Near-Death Studies, book review (Children of the new millennium). 19(4) Summer, pages 247-255. Atwater, P.M.H.(1988).
Coming back to life: The after-effects of the near-death experience. New York, NY: Dodd, Mead. Reissued in 2001 by Kensington Books, New York, NY. Atwater, P.M.H.(1994).
Beyond the light: What isn't being said about the near- death experience. New York, NY: Birch Lane Press. Atwater, P.M.H.(1997).
Phase II Brain shift/spirit shift: A theoretical model using research on near-death states to explore the transformation of consciousness. Self-published. Available through www.pmhatwater.com. Atwater, P.M.H.(1999).
Children of the new millennium: Children's near-death experiences and the evolution of humankind. New York, NY: Three Rivers Press. Atwater, P.M.H., and Morgan, D. H. (2000).
The complete Idiot's guide to near- death experiences. Indianapolis, IN: Alpha Books. Atwater, P.M.H.(2001).
Albemarle Magazine, article "The birth of near-death." April-May, pages 19-29. Brinkley, Dannion, and Perry, Paul (1994).
Saved by the light: The true story of a man who died twice and the profound revelations he received. New York, NY: Villard Books. Eadie, Betty J. (1992).
Embraced by the light. Placerville, CA: Gold Leaf Press. Long, Jeffrey, and McGill, Trisha.
Near-Death Experience Research Foundation: website, www.nderf.org. Lundahl, Craig R., and Widdison, Harold A. (1997).
The eternal journey: How near-death experiences illuminate our earthly lives. New York, NY: Warner Books. Moody, Raymond A. Jr. (1975).
Life after life. Covington, GA: Mockingbird Books. Moody, Raymond A. Jr. (1999).
The last laugh: A new philosophy of near-death experiences, apparitions, and the paranormal. Charlottesville, VA: Hampton Roads. Morse, Melvin, and Perry, Paul (1990).
Closer to the light: Learning from the near- death experiences of children. New York, NY: Villard Books. Morse, Melvin, and Perry, Paul (2000).
Where God lives: The science of the paranormal and how our brains are linked to the universe. New York, NY: Cliff Street Books. Rommer, Barbara R. (2000).
Blessing in disguise: Another side of the near-death experience. St. Paul, MN: Llewellyn Publications. Case included in the 2nd edition, 2001, Epilogue. Silverman, Linda. Director, Institute for the Study of Advanced Development and Editor, Advanced Development Journal. Contact: Gifted Development Center, 1452 Marion Street, Denver, CO 80218. Silverman, Linda. E-mail communication dated Sunday, March 12, 2000.
White, Patti R. (1997).
Journal of Near-Death Studies, "The anatomy of a tranformation: An analysis of the psychological structure of four near-death experiences. 15(3), Spring, pages 163-185. Widdison, Harold A. (2001).
Journal of Near-Death Studies, book review (Children of the new millennium). 19(4), Summer, pages 257-268.
__________________________________________________________________
P.M.H.Atwater, L.H.D., Ph.D. (Hon.) is the author of Coming Back to Life, Beyond the Light, Children of the New Millennium, Future Memory, and The Complete Idiot's Guide to Near-Death Experiences. Her website is www.pmhatwater.com .
The review of CHILDREN OF THE NEW MILLENNIUM by Thomas A. Angerpointner, M.D., a pediatric surgeon.
And Widdison's reply to my reply that is in the same Journal issue.
A letter received from Theresa A. Csanady
Visitors to this site.