Our readers have surely heard of two metaphorical concepts that are frequently used these days: black swans and grey rhinos. The former symbolize those unpredictable events with very low probability but with huge impact and far-reaching consequences. The latter refer to events that are clearly visible on the horizon, not a surprise, and equally impactful.
In the case of grey rhinos, due to their size, their approach is said to be obvious. No entanto, personal interests, comfort, inertia, and the false and cozy sense of security that reigns today are factors that keep us from noticing their arrival. Why? Because they represent such large and novel changes that we become indifferent or simply do not know how to face them.
On March 31, 2025, Charlotte Martial and other authors published an article that, in my opinion, symbolizes the breaking of the membranes of the amniotic sac and the consequent release of fluid—that is, “the water breaks”—marking the beginning of a new scientific paradigm and possibly a new humanity.
In this article, os autores, in my view, are blindly groping to unify observations into a purely physiological hypothetical model that continues to ignore the clearest evidence throughout human history in favor of a physiological route as the sole explanation for near-death experiences (EQMs). Although they acknowledge that NDEs can occur in situations where life is not at risk, they suggest that these are the product of a defense mechanism of the brain. They propose the vague concept of a “desconectado” state for a brain that is active but not connected to the outside world. Events occurring in the brain during the first seconds after a cardiac arrest are cited as possible explanations for NDEs. No entanto, it remains unclear how this could occur without cardiac arrest or under anesthesia.
Além disso, only neurophysiological models are mentioned, and there is a leap from correlation to explanation with no support for such a transition. Endorphins are proposed as the cause of the feelings of well-being during an NDE, but it is overlooked that these states vanish once the NDE ends… even though the endorphins remain in the brain and bloodstream. Martial also ignores the earlier discussion by Van Lommel regarding the dynamics of endorphins—namely that their slow elimination does not align with the sudden pain/no-pain shifts reported by patients upon returning to their bodies.
They hypothesize that previously explained brain mechanisms could produce hyperreality, luzes, Obes (experiências fora do corpo)… but they provide no way to test these hypotheses. It is astonishing how other studies—verifiable and verified—are dismissed outright as unreliable, without presenting any counter-evidence. They reference theta and delta brainwaves, which are found in various states incompatible with lucid consciousness, yet interpret them here as possible causes of NDEs.
But to balance things out, there is also excellent and rigorous news that fills us with pride and hope these days. The first report of Project Light, promoted by the Icloby Foundation, has been released—thanks to the work of healthcare professionals from 15 hospitals in Spain, Colômbia, and Argentina. Some of these hospitals are leaders and international references in research, moved only by scientific curiosity. Although personal patient data will not be made public, the initial findings reaffirm both quantitatively and qualitatively the results supported by earlier studies such as those by Dr. Pim Van Lommel or Dr. Bruce Greyson. All these studies are lethal to the current scientific paradigm, rendering it unsustainable—and the reactions, as we’ve read, are mere speculations.
For those of us who promote, thoroughly research, and work without conjecture—but with evidence—the fact that articles like the one mentioned use so many “maybes,” “could be’s,” “perhaps” as arguments, and are somehow transformed into a model to uphold the scientific paradigm in their conclusions as if by magic, is frankly amusing. But that’s the ticket to stay within and defend the dominant model. In any case, we should remind these authors of the words of Swiss psychiatrist Carl Jung, who said, “Humanity pays a high price for ignoring the evidence of the survival of consciousness.”
Nonetheless, in the coming months, we will be studying and analyzing the data in detail. Don’t worry. We must not grow impatient. Let us consider the ideas left to us by Thomas Samuel Kuhn—American physicist, philosopher of science, and historian—known for shifting the focus of philosophy and sociology of science. This scholar popularized the termsstructure of scientific revolutions escientific paradigm. According to Kuhn, competition between paradigms is not the kind of battle that can be settled on the basis of evidence. And if doubts remain, let us recall the phrase attributed to the much-mentioned and highly awarded Nobel Prize-winning physicist Max Planck:
“A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die.”
Given the articles we’ve seen, it seems this will remain true.
Thank you all for making it this far, and may this rather amusing attempt to unify many observations into a purely hypothetical physiological model—which ignores the clearest evidence that the physiological route cannot be the only explanation for NDEs—make us question the current materialist scientific paradigm. So that we not only come to know who we truly are, but also avoid falling into deep ignorance while believing we know and can explain everything easily.
Dr.. Xavier Melo
Director Fundador
Fundação Icloby