Revised, On Life after Death

I enjoyed reading these few essays a lot. They were diverse and well written, but thought there could easily have been more in depth information added due to her extensive experience in this field. The ending felt unfinished and incomplete.

This book was recommended by my primary care physician after I shared with her that a close family member had been given a dire prognosis. Quite interesting and I couldn't believe the peace reading it brought to me. Highly recommend to everyone.

Interesting ideas, supported by some observations, are presented about life after near-death, out of body experiences. However, projections about life after death, in general, are presented without rationale. It would be nice and hopeful to believe in her theory, but this part seems like just wishful thinking.

On Life After Death

This book was very helpful for me to anticipate and go through the death of my mother. I had read it long ago when my first husband died and had often thought about it since. It was good to have it more clearly in mind to answer skeptics who claimed that what was viewed as the spirit leaves the body was just from a lack of oxygen to the brain, therefore hallucinations. Several interviews in the book absolutely squash that idea.

I was diagnosed with stage iv cancer a year ago. I may live more than 10 years or less than two years. No one can say what time I have left. I have experienced a roller coaster of emotions as can be expected when one receives this kind of news. I got this book from the library. I thought it might enlighten me or give me some kind of peace or insight. Nope. I dislike it so much I cannot even finish reading it.

For one thing, the book is very disjointed. The author starts a story but doesn't really seem to end it. Then she begins telling another story that doesn't get finished. And the beginning of her stories sometimes start in the middle of them, like there is some kind of information you are somehow supposed to know telepathically.

I did not care for the book or the style of writing. It was depressing and not inspiring or in any way uplift like I thought it would be.

Recently dealing with several losses in my life led me to this book. My openess to life was further confirmed in Ross's extraordinary work. If you have ever pondered death, then you need to read this book. It meets you where you are and allows you to grow into the magic of transformation. It is a must read for my shelf!

Ý read this boook in two evenings. Short and straight to the point.
Ýt answered all my questions on this topic, and i felt it was written from the heart.
these are difficult emotions and ones we try not to speak about, but ''on life after death'' there was a openess and truth on this difficult subject,

This is worthwhile reading for those interested in the works of Elizabeth Kubler-Ross. Written toward the end of her life, a certain desperation and effort to convince creep in, and it is more philosophical and less scholarly than her other books, which have been used widely for teaching people about understanding and coping with death.

I keep seeing all these reviews that gush how magnificent it is! Over and over, people remark that Dr. Ross' philosophy has appealed to them (the "cocoon" concept gets a lot of accolades), and how the book is "compelling." It's actually not, and here's why:

Dr. Ross purports to bring a scientific mind to her work; indeed, she pitches herself as a skeptic who has been convinced. Nothing in this book backs up either claim. How many readers know, for example, that Dr. Ross has never published ANY of the 20,000+ investigations/interviews/experiences she claims to have performed with drying and NDE people for peer-review? That's right! She tells us over and over again that her conclusions have been proved "beyond the shadow of a doubt," yet not one bit of her data has ever been produced. It's true because she SAYS it's true, and then she reminds you she's a scientist. Apparently, the kind that doesn't have to ever engage in the scientific method.

For the record, sharing stories of conversations is a great way to show compassion, but it is NOT scientific data. It's disheartening to see the lack of scientific literacy in the reading public who think this is fine.

Second, I don't think readers are aware of the problems in Dr. Ross's credibility itself. She claims that she is not presenting a personal philosophy, but rather the conclusions she has reached through countless experiences with dying and NDE patients. Yet aside from never publishing any actual, verified transcripts of *any* of these testimonials (which would be the bare minimum standard for research), she also tended to fall prey to spiritualist charlatans such as mediums and psychics. Most famous was her training/retreat partner who got caught sexually abusing clients by claiming he could channel their dead husbands for corporeal final trysts in dark rooms. Dr. Ross thought this was fine and dandy, and stuck by him. It wasn't until years after his exposure as a fraud that she--a scientist, remember!--finally disavowed him...not for being a fraud, but because his powers had apparently diminished below her standards! Dr. Ross' usual fallback was that she is merely a scientist "who reports what I see and observe." Apparently, common-sense isn't part of scientific method, either. Dr. Ross interprets criticism of her as evidence for her non-conformist innovation; to her, being called out for scientific hokum is PROOF that she is right. She launches the first paragraph with that.

No, folks, what we end up with is a mish-mash of new-age philosophy that's based in science merely because Dr. Ross TELLS you it is based in science (over and over, without ever showing the science to a single other scientist, ever). And she insists this is "proven beyond a doubt." No, it's not. It's not even subjected to rudimentary data verification by a single peer. It's folk mythology that sounds good, so 50+ readers reward it with glamorous five-star reviews for how remarkable it is, because it confirms what they want to believe as well. It is tantalizingly easy to sell people books that tell them that the beliefs they hope are true have been proven true.

This is the Kubler-Ross dynamic: find a story that leads one to what one desires to be true, relate the story in a folksy way, and then insist that--viola!--the story has now been scientifically verified beyond all doubt, and it obviously supports one's own favored new-age conclusion, by George. Apparently, it sells books. But don't call it science, or even "compelling."

The title of "On Life After Death," is slightly misleading. This book is not about heaven or hell, it mostly just about leaving the body for a short time up to seeing a bright light. If you are looking for descriptions of heaven then you will be very disappointed. Still, Elisabeth Kubler-Ross describes the moment of death in a way that is easy to understand. She doesn't seem to believe in hell so there are no descriptions of negative near-death experiences. In this book she describes her own near-death experience, which was "induced by iatrogenic means, in a laboratory." She also describes a day where she experienced cosmic consciousness.

If you enjoy reading about near-death experiences, here are some books I enjoyed reviewing - most have descriptions of heaven or hell:

Is There Life after Death?

23 Minutes in Hell

Transformed By The Light: The Powerful Effect Of Near-death Experiences On People's Lives

Saved by the Light: The True Story of a Man Who Died Twice and the Profound Revelations He Received

Life After Life: The Investigation of a Phenomenon--Survival of Bodily Death

To Hell and Back: Life After Death Startling New Evidence

~The Rebecca Review