Is it scientific to believe in weird things such as ghosts, hallucinations and near-death experiences?
Answer Podcast
Transcription: Dr Suresh Gupta
Question: Is it scientific to believe in weird things such as ghosts, hallucinations, and near-death experiences?
Answer: Let us look at these many different experiences from a point-by-point perspective and analyze as to how they are scientific or not.
Today, science has adopted materialism as its default metaphysics. Science also considers that materialism should be the chosen philosophy of life for everyone as it is the result of linear studies extended over centuries. However, such a belief is unwarranted. Materialism is more of a pre-supposition than a conclusion. As far as scientific research is concerned, the father of modern psychology, William James, suggested that we focus more on the utility of psychological experiences than on whether they agree with current scientific orthodoxy or not. It means that from a pragmatic perspective if a particular experience has a beneficial effect then it should be considered seriously.
Initially, this line of thought was ignored. However, over a period of time, more and more scientific research started accumulating which suggested that actually people are benefitted from the kind of experiences that mainstream society may call weird or even pathological. For example, study on the experiences of the widowhood showed that a significant number of people who were recently widowed (men or women) actually became better when they had some kind of encounter with their deceased spouses. Through such experiences, they felt that it helped them to move on. Most of them reported not just the presence but also some tactile, visual, or audio sensation that seemed non-different from real-world experience. Only a small percentage said that they found these interactions disconcerting, but many found them to be healing, pacifying which enabled them to move forward. Over the years this line of study has caught up. Now in hospice care if people have some death bed experiences with some revered figures then that staff is trained to see such experiences positively because they help people to prepare for the impending arrival of death.
Such hallucinations can be considered unscientific but that raises a bigger question: What is science? Is science an objective evaluation of observed phenomenon to arrive at some conclusion? Or is science a world view that has to be sanctimoniously protected irrespective of the evidence? If we consider these observations or near-death experiences from the effect perspective, it has been observed that such experiences change the experiencers. This has been observed with a large number of people where there is a dramatic decrease in the competitiveness and consumerism of such people. There is a significant increase in empathy, altruism, and environmentalism. Basically, we could say that the higher values of life or sattva (qualities of goodness) increase and rajas (qualities of passion) decrease.
Now a skeptic may argue that just because some experiences feel good that does not mean they are right, e.g. intoxication provides some short-term feeling of high, but intoxication does not inspire people to take long-term positive changes in their life. Often it has a long-term negative consequence. On the contrary, near-death experiences (NDEs) can have enormous positive consequences on people.
At present, science is unequipped to evaluate the metaphysical status of what people experience during such situations because the scientific methodology in itself is largely methodological naturalism i.e. looking for a natural explanation for natural phenomena. Hence, whether there is something nonmaterial or not? Scientific orthodoxy would argue that there is nothing non-material whereas open-minded researchers might be a little more open to the presence of some higher reality. Either way, unless there is a radical redefinition of science, the higher reality will be difficult for science to investigate. However, the effects of such experiences can be investigated, and their therapeutic benefits can be understood.
What could be a reasonable explanation for such experiences? Are these placebos? A placebo is basically a treatment that seems to be a “real” medical treatment — but isn’t. It could be a sugar pill, a shot, or some other type of “fake” treatment. Although, placebos are not real medicines, but they do have real medicinal effects on people. At least for some people and to some degree. One may ask, are placebos real? Even if we assume that placebos are not real medicines, but it cannot be denied that they do have real medicinal effects and heal a certain number of people. The understanding here is that the placebos activate the mind’s innate healing mechanism.
Now, if some people are cured by placebos there is no justification for ridiculing, stigmatizing them. Similarly, if somebody’s life is radically transformed by having some kind of mystical experience then that needs to be acknowledged and not ridiculed or derided. One way to know whether the experiences are real is to look at some veridical experiences where the perception of those experiences coincides with reality. Could it be that people report accurate observations which they could not normally have known by any other means and yet they knew it accurately? There has been a significant amount of research in this area. In my book Demystifying Reincarnation I have given many cases of people having veridical perceptions during extraordinary events like near-death experiences.
At the empirical level, we can only see the event and its effect. At the empirical level, accurate perceptions are happening and also beneficial effects are happening. Therefore, to stigmatize and deride mystical experiences is definitely unscientific or anti-scientific. That raises a bigger question – as in the placebo effect brain releases chemicals to heal the body itself, so could the paranormal mystical experiences also be a result of brain phenomenon alone? Sometimes, experiences like NDEs can be simulated by some psychedelic chemicals but not everything, and no psychedelic chemical can give people veridical perceptions which coincide with reality.
Hence, we could say that there is reasonable case for being open minded about these paranormal experiences in terms of their metaphysical content. However, there is a strong case for accepting their beneficial therapeutic effects. Therefore, the scientific basis for many of the paranormal events is undeniably strong.
End of transcription.
Question: Is it scientific to believe in paranormal phenomena like ghosts, out-of-body experiences, or hallucinations?
Answer: To address this question meaningfully, we must first recognize that these experiences—ghost sightings, out-of-body experiences, hallucinations—are diverse and multifaceted. So, let’s take a point-by-point approach to explore whether belief in such phenomena can be considered scientific.
Today, science has largely adopted materialism as its default metaphysical framework. It often treats materialism not just as a method of inquiry but as a worldview, implying that materialism is the inevitable outcome of a centuries-long linear progression of objective research. However, this is misleading.
Materialism is more of a presupposition than a proven conclusion. The father of modern psychology, William James, suggested a different approach—he argued that we should assess the utility of psychological experiences rather than merely judge whether they conform to existing scientific orthodoxy. In other words, if an experience has beneficial effects, it deserves serious attention. While this view was initially sidelined, research has increasingly supported it.
Over time, scientific studies have shown that people often benefit from experiences that mainstream society might label as “WEIRD” (Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, Democratic) or even pathological. For example, a study on widowhood revealed that many recently widowed individuals—both men and women—reported some form of encounter with their deceased spouse. These were not vague feelings; many described tactile, visual, or auditory sensations that were indistinguishable from ordinary experiences. While a small percentage found these experiences unsettling, many found them comforting and healing, helping them to move on with life.
This line of study has now gained wider acceptance. In hospice care, for instance, staff are trained to respond positively if patients report deathbed visions or interactions with deceased loved ones or revered figures. These experiences are increasingly recognized as helpful in preparing for death.
So, are hallucinations necessarily bad or unscientific? This raises a deeper question: What is science? Is it the objective evaluation of observed phenomena? Or has it become a worldview to be defended, even when evidence challenges it?
In scientific inquiry, we distinguish between observations and inferences. Take near-death experiences (NDEs) as an example. A significant number of people report these experiences, and more importantly, these events often result in positive long-term psychological changes—such as reduced competitiveness and consumerism, and increased empathy, altruism, and environmental consciousness. In the dharmic tradition, these shifts would be described as a rise in sattva and a decrease in rajas.
Skeptics might argue: “Just because something feels good doesn’t make it true.” That’s fair. But there’s a difference between temporary highs like intoxication—which often have negative long-term effects—and profound experiences like NDEs, which frequently lead to sustained, positive transformations.
Science, as currently practiced, often adheres to methodological naturalism—the assumption that all phenomena must have material explanations. This limits its capacity to investigate non-material realities. While more open-minded researchers may entertain the possibility of a higher reality, unless there is a radical redefinition of science, such realities remain beyond its grasp. However, their effects can still be studied—and those effects often point to therapeutic benefits.
So how might we explain these experiences?
Let’s consider the concept of the placebo effect. A placebo is not a “real” medicine, but it can have real medicinal effects by activating the body’s innate healing mechanisms. If paranormal or mystical experiences function similarly—triggering psychological or physiological healing—then, even if they are not “objectively real,” they still have real value. Ridiculing such experiences would be as unjustified as mocking someone who improves after taking a placebo.
Moreover, beyond subjective effects, there are reports of veridical experiences—cases where people in altered states perceive accurate information they could not have known by normal means. In my book Demystifying Reincarnation, I cite many examples of such occurrences during near-death or other extraordinary experiences. For instance, person A claims to have seen person B doing something specific at another location, and it turns out B was indeed doing that at that time—without any way A could have known.
So what do we find at the empirical level?
- Events that people subjectively experience.
- Effects—positive psychological and emotional outcomes.
- In some cases, even accurate perceptions of external reality.
Therefore, to stigmatize or deride mystical or paranormal experiences is not just unscientific—it’s anti-scientific.
Finally, can these experiences be reduced to brain chemistry? Some aspects of near-death experiences can be simulated by psychedelic substances, but not all—especially not veridical perceptions. So, while the metaphysical reality of these experiences remains open to debate, their beneficial effects are undeniable.
In conclusion, there is a strong case for being open-minded about the metaphysical implications of paranormal experiences. But more importantly, there is an undeniably strong scientific case—based on empirical evidence—for acknowledging their therapeutic value.
Thank you.