To relate it to reported near death experiences in humans they'd have to have evidence that the rats were having a near death experience, and dead rats can't report. The only way to have any information about the internal experience of a living being is by their report of that experience. This should always be pointed out. And there is no way and there never will be any way to fact check the accuracy or truth or quality of that experience because the one experiencing it is the only one who knows anything about it, they are the one and only expert of their own experience. Such neuroscience isn't science, it's ideological propaganda. What a pointlessly sadistic experiment.

A more inclusive view of things would seem to be how Rupert Sheldrake deals with the paranormal, in his Science Set Free podcasts he and his companion go all over the place with a general framing of good will and openness. I'm really more interested in convincing people that we've got not only a capacity but a moral obligation to work for equal justice, economic justice, the general welfare and the biosphere. I don't think any of it is really unrelated though if you're going to concentrate on the purely statistical and experimental that gets lost in the details and the brawls with materialists.

I've listened to a number of debates featuring Carroll and Novella and I'm not especially impressed with either of them. I'd recommend the debate Carroll had with William Lane Craig on Youtube as being about the best of those and Craig did a pretty good job of demolishing his arguments, though Carroll did better against him than most of the other big name atheist-scientists. I think he watched the other debates with Craig and realized he'd better prepare. I don't know how Moody or Alexander will do in a debate, though Alexander should certainly know more about neurological matters than Carroll or, for that matter, Novella. I'm especially skeptical about the "Intelligence Squared" outfit having heard some of their "debates" on the radio. Old line establishment bias.

I think "smiley" must set a record of persistent totally false statements. I have noticed problems with Wikipedia on a number of controversial topics, political, economic, etc. I hadn't, before last Friday, found two websites instructing people into how to ideologically distort Wikipedia and "Web of Trust", and those just both happen to be ideological "Skeptics". Wikipedia is a failed experiment, you can't trust any reference source in which the editors and authors aren't named and the fact checking process, likewise, in the hands of named people who will know their credibility is at stake. That's the only way to keep a reference work honest. Wikipedia makes a lot of that now totally outmoded "study" comparing it favorably to Britannica. Well, not on controversial topics, it isn't, and not consistently on any topic at any given time. We know it is being slanted and that the people who control Wikipedia aren't interested in doing anything about that. They have no credibility and their resource is corrupted.