And...we have things to report.
I've done a quick search on this. And we have the detailed report of someone who actually did a lot more than email Kimberly. They went to see her and interviewed her.
Now first up let us say that this is the epitome of NDEs. This is a very well known case and people put it forward continuously as a classic and irrefutable example of a veridical Near Death Experience (and in passing, has anyone come across the word 'veridical' in a forum post that wasn't associated with NDEs?). This needs to be considered as one of the best examples for proof of the experience it's possible to have. Books have been written about it and over the years in many forums I have been presented with this multiple times. I'll be taking details from this report from now on in to save anyone from having to read the whole thing, although I can't cut and paste as it's a pdf:
https://cdn.centerforinquiry.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/29/1996/07/22165033/p27.pdf
First up is a quote by the NDE researchers Ring and Lawrence: 'Maria's inexplicable sighting....has the power to arrest the skeptic's argument in mid-sentence'. Well, let's see.
A couple of guys from Skeptical Enquirer, Hayden Ebbern and Sean Mulligan travelled to Seattle to interview Kimberly. They were unable to contact Maria (who had the NDE) and no-one they talked to had any records of her. The details of the NDE were taken from Kimberly's 1984 report of the matter and face to face discussions.
Maria had a cardiac arrest at one point in the hospital following her admission with heart problems and was revived. She later told Kimberly a few things that she said she saw, specifically a tennis shoe on a third floor ledge. Kimberly said she went outside and couldn't see it but it was just visible through a couple of windows if she pressed her face up close to the glass.
Ebbern and Mulligan went to the building and placed a shoe where Kimberly had said it had been. On the ground floor, they could see it quite clearly. And in fact, because of recent construction, they had to stand further back than would have been possible earlier. A week later when they returned to the site, the shoe had been removed. Showing that it was plainly obvious to at least one other person.
Kimberly had said that is was next to impossible to see from any of the third floor rooms (where Maria was kept) but they found just the opposite, and it was clearly visible simply by standing in her room. In fact it was visible as soon as one entered the room.
So this tennis shoe was plainly visible from both inside and outside the building, certainly from Maria's room and there is a strong likelihood that someone at some point would have mentioned it. It was, obviously, an odd thing to see on a third floor ledge. It is quite possible, if not probable, that Maria could have heard anyone making a comment about this and then repeating it as some form of recall that she had.
What about the reports and notes that Kimberly had taken? There were none. But this was reported soon after the event so someone might have been able to confirm some of the details? No, Kimberly didn't report it until after seven years after the event. So as was said in the article, there was no way possible of knowing if Kimberly had inadvertently asked any leading questions or had prompted Maria in some way as to her answers. There is no way to know that anything Maria said she recalled that didn't fit the facts wasn't simply ignored or forgotten.
But we can check the details of the shoe? No, Kimberly said 'it would be too much trouble to look for it'. Maybe it was in her garage.
Did she lie? I doubt it. Did she remember everything accurately? I doubt it. Did Maria give an accurate account of the details? We'll never know. Was she prompted by the line of questioning? Quite possibly. Did Kimberly have a confirmational bias? Well, we all do. Is Kimberly exhibiting an emotional attachment to the spiritual aspects of this event? Well, she became a minor celebrity after this (as I say, quoted in many forum discussions and articles on NDEs) and is writing yet another book.
Ebbern and Mulligan attended a meeting of the NDE support group that Kimberly had set up in the area. They said it had all the atmosphere of a revival meeting. Critical questions were 'decidedly unwelcome'.
Now knowing all that (and there's more in the article) are we in any way convinced that this was a bona fide example of an NDE? Well, Maria might have had one. But did she actually see what she is reported to have seen? I think that having someone actually attend the site and do a critical examination of the facts, the answer to that is almost certainly no. At very best, it must be plainlystated that there are serious doubts about the case. And, I will repeat, this is held up as an example of an undeniable event that 'has the power to arrest the skeptic's argument in mid-sentence'.
I think not.
