Cantleave, the evidence you've provided, while certainly worth consideration, does not give any sort of rational explanation as to why these NDEs are occurring. Much of what you've quoted are the writings of militant atheists, such as Dr. Gerry Woerlee (whom I have had several conversations on-line with) who have a much vested interest in going to any lengths to try and explain these experiences away as mere hallucinations. He insists that her experience was caused by anesthesia awareness and will go to any lengths to try and discredit the possibility that our consciousness can survive outside of the physical body. Pam's eyes were taped shut during the surgery, there were nodules placed in her ears that would go off every few seconds and this was used to record any possible brain activity. There's no way she could have possibly either seen what was going on or heard it.
When I compared the descriptions of NDEs with those who have had Anesthesia Awareness, it was pretty obvious that they are 2 completely different experiences. Diane Parr was unfortunate enough to experience AA during surgery and it bares no resemblance at all to those who experience NDEs. People who are blind from birth have been able to see visually for the first time during an NDE, but unfortunately, these experiences too are dismissed by fanatics like Worelee or Susan Blackmore who go to extraordinary lengths to try and discredit them as nothing more than fanciful hallucinations of the brain.
Skeptics (who really are not skeptical at all---they should be renamed: Militant Non-Believers) have long asked for verifiable evidence that something survives the physical death, probably assuming that nothing would ever surface. However, each year, there is more and more evidence that something incredible is going on and it seems to happen as one approaches death. Those who simply have no belief at all in anything but a materialist world will never concede that something might survive the physical death and I find it rather disturbing that so many ex-JWs have simply swapped on set of fanatical beliefs with another and will not admit even the possibility that their view might not be telling the whole story.
I think a good healthy dose of skepticism is something we should all have, but it shouldn't be so fanatical that we're not open to other possibilities. Just because something can't be replicated in a double-blind study under controlled conditions in a lab doesn't mean it's not real.