Near-death experiences (NDEs) might be more common than most would think, according to a new study by the International Association for Near-Death Studies. 

The study reveals that 23 percent of American adults report having had a near-death experience, after which they returned to normal human existence. The study also reveals that 35 percent of the individuals queried about such experiences who have not had an NDE themselves said they know someone who has. 

“In an NDE, usually during a close brush with death, a person has a vivid, emotionally intense experience of lucidly perceiving the material world from a position outside the physical body and/or perceiving and interacting with beings and environments not of the material world,” said Janet Riley, executive director of the International Association for Near-Death Studies, in an email to The Debrief. “Afterward, experiencers are usually profoundly changed.”

The survey, conducted in March 2026 by Centiment and involving 2,100 Americans, looked more deeply at the effects of these experiences. Among those who reported having an NDE, 51 percent said the experience gave them a deeper meaning and appreciation for life, while 37.6 percent said they felt more connected to a “spiritual realm.”

Overall, thirty-one percent said the experience changed their life priorities; 30 percent said they were less afraid of death than before; 30 percent reported greater empathy for others; and 26 percent said they had become more generous and socially minded.

Among respondents who knew a friend or family member who had experienced an NDE, 44 percent said they became more curious about the afterlife, while 40 percent reported a stronger belief in life after death.

“This remarkable data tells us three important things: NDEs may be more common than we realized; people who have NDEs or hear about them are positively impacted, and the majority of Americans believe evidence exists to support the phenomena,” Riley said in a statement. “The survey also makes clear the importance of normalizing conversations about life, death, and what comes after. Those who have had NDEs or who research them may be some of the best teachers.”

What about those who have never had an NDE?

Additionally, the survey revealed that 27.3 percent of participants who had never experienced an NDE themselves found the evidence significant enough to change their minds, while 31.3 percent said it at least provided reliable evidence for some type of phenomenon.

The smallest category of responding participants, at 15 percent, said there was limited evidence, while 24 percent said there was insufficient evidence.

Nearly four out of five respondents (79.8 percent) said there is either some value (36.7 percent) or major value (41.1 percent) in studying near-death experiences.

A Paradigm Shift? 

Culturally, perceptions about NDEs and related subjects may be changing, and mainstream attitudes may be evolving. Even in the world of pop culture, celebrity gossip columnist Perez Hilton (Mario Armando Lavandeira Jr.), known for his often controversial commentary, has spoken publicly about a near-death experience after taking flu medication without food, which led to a stomach ulcer, perforation, and severe sepsis. He ultimately spent 21 days in the hospital.

After the experience, Hilton said he was appalled by his “selfish behavior” and offered apologies, explaining that after finding God, he came to regret the fact that, as he put it, “I didn’t care who I hurt.”

The International Association for Near-Death Studies survey also asked participants whether death frightened them. Twenty-five percent said the idea of dying scared them “a little,” while 14.8 percent said it scared them “a great deal.” However, 31 percent said they felt confident that they would be in a better place after death, while only 6.2 percent worried they would be in a worse place. Another 25 percent said they had “made peace with death.”

“We were founded as a research organization, and no survey like this had occurred recently,” Riley explained. “Given the strong interest in near-death experiences, we thought a survey would be timely.”

“We also felt that communicating the results could help normalize conversations about the phenomenon, which some people are reluctant to share because they fear not being taken seriously,” Riley added.

With this high level of confidence in life after death, such beliefs may continue to spread further into the mainstream, influencing everyday life and shaping how people view themselves and the world around them.

“We also know from NDE research that those who have had the experiences feel a deep connection to others, feel more loving and spiritual, and often feel more altruistic and generous,” Riley says. “We believe connection, love, altruism, and generosity have the potential to make the world a better place.”

Chrissy Newton is a PR professional and the founder of VOCAB Communications. She currently appears on The Discovery Channel and Max and hosts the Rebelliously Curious podcast, which can be found on YouTube and on all audio podcast streaming platforms. Follow her on X: @ChrissyNewton, Instagram: @BeingChrissyNewton, and chrissynewton.com. To contact Chrissy with a story, please email chrissy @ thedebrief.org.

The question of whether artificial intelligence can be conscious has moved well beyond science fiction. It now sits at the center of scientific debate and is increasingly shaping discussions about a range of contentious issues, from AI ethics to animal welfare, fetal development, and laboratory-grown brain tissue.

However, according to a new analysis published in Neuron, the science used to answer that question may not actually be measuring what researchers think it is. A research team led by Hakwan Lau at the Institute for Basic Science in South Korea, with collaborators from the Université de Montréal and New York University, argues that many common experimental methods in consciousness research do not separate subjective experience from general information processing.

In the paper, The Ethical Impasse of Current Consciousness Science, the researchers argue that current scientific tools may not be capable of reliably detecting consciousness.

The Measurement Problem

Consciousness research relies heavily on methods such as visual masking, binocular rivalry, and the detection of perceptual limits. These methods usually compare brain responses when a person is aware of something versus when they are not. The idea is that the difference between these two cases shows whether conscious experience is present or not.

Lau and his team challenge this assumption. When experiments make a stimulus invisible, they often reduce both conscious awareness and the brain’s ability to process information about that stimulus. This means that what appears to be a marker of consciousness in the brain may actually reflect general cognitive activity.

“Many current theories of consciousness appear to be supported by a range of experimental findings,” Lau said. “But those findings may actually reflect general information processing rather than consciousness itself — so it remains difficult to conclude that these theories truly explain consciousness.”

A Historical Warning

The authors compare the current situation to the late 19th and early 20th centuries, when strong claims about consciousness led to a crisis in psychology. The resulting backlash led to the rise of behaviorism, which focused only on observable behavior and halted consciousness research for many years.

Researchers caution that a similar situation could occur again. As AI systems become more advanced and public interest in machine consciousness increases, scientists are under pressure to provide answers. If researchers make strong claims about consciousness in AI, organoids, or fetuses that lack robust methods to support them, scientific credibility could be undermined.

Better Science Required

The authors suggest a different approach. Conditions like blindsight, in which people with brain damage can respond to stimuli they do not report seeing, offer a more controlled way to study consciousness. Another example is hemispatial neglect, where patients fail to notice one side of their visual field while still having basic perception. For researchers, these conditions provide a rare opportunity to separate awareness from information processing and investigate each process on its own.

These conditions show that subjective experience and information processing are distinct from one another. The team says that building experiments around this difference is needed to make reliable scientific claims about consciousness.

The implications of this study extend far beyond the academic world. Deciding whether non-human entities are conscious has direct legal and ethical concerns. The researchers say that the science behind these decisions must meet high standards.

“Questions about consciousness increasingly carry ethical and societal implications,” Lau said. “If scientific claims about consciousness are going to influence discussions about animal welfare, AI ethics, or bioethics, then the scientific foundations supporting those claims must be especially rigorous.”

The researchers conclude that the most urgent challenge is not deciding whether AI, animals, or organoids are conscious, but developing better tools to identify consciousness if it emerges.

Austin Burgess is a writer and researcher with a background in sales, marketing, and data analytics. He holds an MBA, a Bachelor of Science in Business Administration, and a data analytics certification. His work focuses on breaking scientific developments, with an emphasis on emerging biology, cognitive neuroscience, and archaeological discoveries.