The AWARE Studies: Prospective NDE Testing
It happened — and nature accounts for it.
The account
The AWARE I and II studies (2008–2023) placed hidden visual targets in cardiac arrest bays across multiple hospitals and attempted to verify out-of-body perceptions — finding no confirmed hits despite 2,060 cardiac arrests studied.
Read the full account →Collapse the account ↑
The AWARE (AWAreness during REsuscitation) studies were designed as a prospective scientific test of near-death experience claims. Shelves were installed above resuscitation equipment in hospital bays, each holding a randomly assigned hidden image visible only from the ceiling — the vantage point from which a person floating out of their body would theoretically see. Cardiac arrest survivors were interviewed about any memories from their resuscitation.
AWARE I (2014) enrolled 2,060 cardiac arrest cases across 15 UK and US hospitals. Of 140 survivors interviewed, nine had NDEs, but only one reported perceptions that could be checked against events in the room — and that patient was not in a room equipped with a target shelf. AWARE II (2023) expanded the protocol with audio stimuli in addition to visual targets. Of 567 cardiac arrests, 28 survivors were interviewed; six had NDE-like experiences, but none identified either the visual images or the audio stimuli.
Across more than 15 years of prospective testing, no survivor identified a hidden physical target placed for them to see from a ceiling vantage point during cardiac arrest.
The studies also found that approximately 10% of cardiac arrest survivors report some form of conscious experience during resuscitation.
Reviewer Notes
We weigh a claim on two things, kept separate from the story above.
Assessed by Miracles Jar AI
Null result: zero verified out-of-body perceptions of hidden targets in the largest controlled test ever conducted.
The verdict: Null result: zero verified out-of-body perceptions of hidden targets in the largest controlled test ever conducted.
The AWARE study was the most rigorous prospective scientific test of near-death experience claims ever designed, and it returned a null result — zero verified out-of-body perceptions of hidden targets. The "veridical NDE proponents" made the testable prediction that out-of-body perceivers can view hidden physical objects from a ceiling vantage; it was not confirmed.
The null result does not prove that consciousness cannot survive death — absence of evidence is not evidence of absence when only a fraction of cases could be tested. Around 78% of cardiac arrests occurred in rooms without target shelves, substantially limiting the opportunity to test a genuine out-of-body experience. That is an infrastructure limitation, not a design flaw.
Roughly 10% of patients reported conscious experience during resuscitation — consistent with brain-based accounts rather than literal departure from the body. The six AWARE II subjective experiences (light, peace, life review) are real as experiences, but external perception was unverified.
The strongest available empirical evidence on the veridical out-of-body perception claim has not been confirmed in over 15 years of prospective testing.
Evidence ledger — what the verdict rests on
Zero patients identified hidden visual targets placed above resuscitation tables in equipped rooms across two large multi-center studies
78% of cardiac arrests occurred in rooms not equipped with target shelves, substantially limiting the opportunity for a genuine OBE to be tested
Infrastructure limitation, not design flaw
Six patients in AWARE II reported subjective NDE-like experiences (light, peace, life review) but none with verifiable external perceptions
Subjective experiences real; external perception unverified
What would raise this score: Instrumented or physical evidence — measurements, samples, footage that survives analysis — would raise this.
What would lower it: A controlled observation reproducing the experience naturally (lighting, suggestion, pareidolia) would move it down.
How this works
We keep two questions apart on purpose — so a thin record can’t make an impossible thing look proven, and a strong record can’t dress up an ordinary one as a miracle. First: Could nature explain it? (taking the account as true for the moment.) The question is whether nature could produce this at all — assuming, for the moment, the events are true as described. Second: is there real evidence it happened? A claim only stands out when both hold up — and we never call anything certain either way. How ratings work →
The natural explanation
The leading natural account for this case is misperception: how honest witnesses get it wrong. Read what it explains — and where it stops.
Sources
Tagged by proximity to the event. Primary sources are direct or contemporaneous; tertiary are downstream retellings.
- 1.Primaryacademic
Sam Parnia et al., "AWAreness during REsuscitation - II: A multi-center study of consciousness and awareness in cardiac arrest", 2023· no public link
Published in Resuscitation journal; PubMed PMID 37423492
- 2.Secondaryinvestigation
Psi Encyclopedia / Society for Psychical Research, "AWARE NDE Studies", 2023· no public link
Pro-NDE scholarly summary with acknowledgment of null results
- 3.Secondaryother
Steven Novella / NeuroLogica Blog, "AWARE Results Finally Published — No Evidence of NDE", 2014· no public link
Skeptical analysis of AWARE I results
Cases like this
Nearest on the map — similar in how miraculous they’d be, and how strong the evidence is.