Life after Death from a Scientific Point of View

One hundred years ago, only a small percentage of the population believed in an afterlife; today, that number has risen to around one-third. Academic science does not support this belief—or does it?

---

Many people today who followed the usual path through school believe that humans are biological beings and that the existence of their ‘I’ begins and ends with the birth and death of the body. And yet, there’s actually no empirical evidence to support this belief. Research related to these questions, for example, the loss of psychological abilities following a stroke, mood changes in conjunction with the use of hormones or psychotropic drugs, and other such phenomena, only offer evidence that psychological activity accompanies physical activity (there is correlation) but not that psychological activity arises from physical activity (causality is not proven).¹ For instance, physically, we can observe the firing rates of neurons, but psychologically, feelings of compassion or affection are phenomena on an entirely different level; to describe these two levels as equal is committing a classic categorical mistake. There is no empirical evidence or proof that psychological events arise from biological processes.

So, if upon first observation, there’s no reason to rank psychological phenomena or physical phenomena in any particular hierarchy, and no reason to decide that psychological phenomena emerge from the physical, then there’s also no reason to conclude that the psychological phenomenon we call our ‘I’ must begin and end at the same moment that the biological body is created or passes away. From this point of view, it even appears as an unlikely coincidence. This suggests that we should reasonably consider the possibility that an ‘I’ may exist without a body.

Conversations with the Dead

Following this train of thought, we can consider it important to conduct research into communication with the dead and cases of reincarnation. Certainly, we can acknowledge that the literature is filled with an abundance of sensationalist claims. But we also find a number of academic studies with solid empirical findings, and even overviews in conventional academic journals that include peer review, impact factor, and are listed in online databases of academic articles. This work confirms some of the basic statements made by Rudolf Steiner over a century ago, before these external research findings were available.

The cases dealing with communication with the dead involve the use of a so-called “medium,” a person with, let’s just say, “uncommon abilities of perception.” These mediums claim they have the ability to communicate with the dead, and many have now participated in standardized testing procedures. Rudolf Steiner described mediums as having an atavistic, or ancient, form of spiritual consciousness, which included the fact that they are not able to provide instructions for reproducing their abilities and their results. Nevertheless, if we’re attempting to consider the question of life after death from a scientific point of view, these studies are relevant and of interest. Comparison and analysis of multiple studies show that the results are not arbitrary.

In a typical study, a medium is presented with a series of standardized questions, usually about several deceased persons.² The medium communicates with the deceased and provides answers about deceased persons A and B, for example. The research team presents the answers to the surviving relatives of A and B, but first mixes the results together: half the answers from deceased person A are presented to surviving relative A, along with half the answers from deceased person B; and vice versa. There are several blinds in the study, for example, the bereaved and the medium have no direct contact. The bereaved person is asked to assess the statements by answering: Is this statement from my deceased relative or someone else? The random probability of selecting the statement from the relative is thus fifty percent. If the bereaved identify statements from their deceased relatives above this random probability, this is an indication that there was communication with the deceased.

In the study in question, bereaved individuals were significantly more likely to identify statements as coming from their deceased relative than would be expected by chance. A meta-analysis of fourteen articles, encompassing eighteen individual studies, puts the average at around ten percent above random.³ While this is a modest effect, it is statistically significant. In other words, the mediums don’t consistently provide statements from the deceased that can be confirmed by surviving relatives. (This is a good reason to refrain from personal use of such communications—how do we know it’s a competent medium? What if we’re given a seemingly “true” statement that unsettles us for the rest of our lives?) And yet, the mediums do deliver corroborated statements with a frequency that can no longer be described as coincidental according to current scientific conventions.

Children Know about Past Lives

Since the 1960s, extensive research into reincarnation has been initiated by the psychiatrist and professor Ian Stevenson, who founded a research facility, The Division of Perceptual Studies, at the University of Virginia’s School of Medicine. Each reincarnation case is entirely unique, but similarities have been found. Typically, the subject is very young, around three years old on average. They report experiences of a completely different life, and the statements are surprising for their age. For example, one child remarked: “I liked it better when I was big, and I could go wherever and whenever I wanted to go. I hate being little . . . . I just can’t live in these conditions. My last home was much better.”⁴ Astonished parents eventually find a research institution, and the case is scientifically investigated. The children’s statements about previous lives are compiled, including names of previous incarnations, locations, relatives, etc. In most cases, they underwent a violent death in their previous life, only a few years or decades before their new birth. The investigators research whether the described earlier incarnation existed and whether there are any living friends or relatives. Where possible, those who knew the previous incarnation are interviewed, and correlations are noted between the child’s account and the results of the investigation.

One example is the case of James Leininger.⁵ His parents took him to an aviation museum when he was two years old. Afterwards, James started having nightmares. He began painting hundreds of images of crashed airplanes and claimed to have died in an airplane that had been shot down. When his parents asked him questions, James explained that he’d taken off in an airplane from a boat; the boat was called Natoma; his plane was a Corsair; there’d been someone else with him, a colleague, Jack Larson; and he was also called James in that previous life. The research by the parents and research team revealed that there had been an American aircraft carrier during the Second World War called the Natoma Bay stationed in the Pacific. James’ father found that the soldiers stationed on the Natoma still held reunions occasionally. He went and discovered there was a pilot named Jack Larson, who was still alive but hadn’t attended the reunion. The father tracked him down, and Jack told him there was a soldier who’d been shot down, crashed, and killed by enemy fire (in March 1945)—a young man named James Huston. There were even images of him in front of his plane—a Corsair.

One single case is not ultimate proof, but the sheer number of correlating cases is striking. There are now over 2,000 such documented cases, recorded in 76 scientific articles published in over 20 journals, all listed on major scientific databases (Scopus, Web of Science, PubMed/Medline, PsycINFO).⁶ There’s also a suspicion that birthmarks of subsequent incarnations are related to the circumstances of death of the previous incarnation. For example, a review by Stevenson⁷ identifies eighteen cases where: a) a child claimed to have been killed by a gunshot to the head in the previous life; b) the previous incarnation could be determined; and c) birthmarks on the child’s head corresponded to the entry and exit locations of the bullet wound from the previous incarnation (according to Tucker, 2018).[4]

In the Beginning, there Is Belief

What are we to do with such findings? Previously, our attitude may have been, “Either I believe it or not; there’s no way of knowing.” Now, the situation appears to be the opposite. Logically, there can be no proof that something “does not” exist (for example, that humans don’t live after biological death). Moreover, there are now specific indications to suggest that there is life after death. To just deny this evidence would be unscientific. But, of course, it’s also certainly not proof either. What would proof look like? Do we even want proof? Then, we’d be compelled to believe and would have to forego the valuable path of making a judgment and seeking understanding. Still, every search for truth—every scientific endeavor to gain knowledge—requires an initial leap of faith, a trial of sorts; otherwise, we’re not open to discovery. Belief and open-mindedness are the beginning of all science. This can become dangerous, though, if belief resists newly discovered knowledge and hardens into dogma. Science maintains viability so long as belief is free to consider new directions and put itself to the test again. This applies to our own relationship to knowledge as well. If an idea leaves us cold, we feel lost; if we identify too strongly with it, we’re also lost.

In the sixteenth century, when Copernicus published his work on the movements of the celestial bodies, people found it difficult to keep pace with the scientific transition from a geocentric to a heliocentric view of the cosmos. The old, geocentric view was their way of life, their identity; they identified with it too strongly to easily let go. If we are so fully in the grip of our worldview, then a challenging and perhaps long overdue change can be perceived as an existential threat; we are reluctant to change and can put up significant resistance. Today, the materialistic, biologically centered understanding of the human being stands in a similar relationship as the geocentric worldview once did. It could be helpful, at least in light of the above-mentioned studies, to now accept this trial of belief, this leap of faith, to now live with an understanding of the human being that places the spiritual sun of the human ‘I’ in the center. For many of us, this change is certainly a threat to our self-identity. Over the years, we’ve built up a view of the world, either explicitly or implicitly, and identify with a materialistic view of the world and humanity.

Many people today live with the idea that matter can be divided into ever-smaller components and that, even at the smallest level, it can still be thought of in spatial terms.⁸ This is the worldview of Classical Physics. Since the time of quantum physics, there have been reasons to consider that matter at the atomic and subatomic range is processual—and very volatile at that. Physics comes into play less and less here, and more and more, we rely solely on theoretical mathematics. Matter is thus contemplated purely conceptually. Steiner described matter as crystallized spirit, in the way that ice is crystallized water or water is crystallized air.⁹

As we discussed at the beginning of this article, the simple juxtaposition of psychological and physical phenomena (as merely correlation, not causation) can be used as a first step to help separate these two different levels. We can consider that the psychological phenomena need not be understood as arising from the physical. Now we can consider the inverse: that physical phenomena arise from the psychological (soul-spirit)—a kind of second step of the geocentric to heliocentric worldview.

My Plan for My Next Incarnation

Over a hundred years ago, Rudolf Steiner pointed out the above-mentioned connections to life after death and reincarnation, even without the data collected in the case studies now available. With this in mind, it may be helpful to take his other, even more far-reaching explanations to heart¹⁰—not to simply believe or not believe them, but to set out on the path of knowledge while acknowledging the scope of our own possibilities: Where are we personally already able to make a judgment and have clear perceptions? Where can we better inform ourselves about certain circumstances from his explanations? Which avenues of scientific research can we investigate to become capable of judgment ourselves? And even more concretely: What mental pictures do I now have concerning what will happen to me after death? Do I only have abstract mental pictures, or am I already honestly considering future paths after bodily death, perhaps in a similar way to how I picture future phases of my current life? And ultimately: What’s my plan for my next incarnation?

One last point: The consequences of social exclusion in everyday life have been clearly demonstrated. The pain that occurs can even be compared with physical pain.¹¹ So, what pain might the deceased be experiencing if we continue to exclude them? Rudolf Steiner indicated that problems arise not only for the deceased but also for those alive on Earth. If we first assume that every human being does have a knowledge of reality at some level of their being, even if only in the deep unconscious, then, if our everyday, conscious thinking is incompatible with this knowledge of reality (in our deep unconscious), that means, we’re living in constant contradiction. Considering the cases presented above, we’re also living with a contradiction when we continue to assume that physical death is also the death of the spirit and soul. Such chronic inconsistency and untruthfulness erode and undermine health.¹²

Anthroposophical Treasure Trove

It’s important that we consider these issues in regard to education and therapy. The assertion that people’s spirit and soul are extinguished completely with the death of the biological body lacks evidence and is thereby unscientific. The assertion that people’s spirit and soul are extinguished completely when they discard their biological body lacks evidence and is thereby unscientific. It’s essential that the results of spiritual scientific research, like all scientific results, find their way into our open-ended understanding and aren’t merely confronted with an unyielding blockade. Anthroposophy is a veritable treasure trove here, and I’m absolutely certain that the further we get with current research possibilities, the more this treasure trove will reveal its gifts. The hostilities and defamations are certainly distressing and exhausting. But perhaps, this is also all part of the path of freedom: We first have to work our way through a thicket of obstacles to adequately appreciate the treasures we discover. Still, it seems to me that such an approach actually misses the point. After all, on a sinking ship, who throws away the life preserver if it was made a hundred years ago by someone who may have explained things differently than we do today?

---

Ulrich Weger is a professor of psychology at Witten/Herdecke University, where Jonas Raggatz is a research associate and coordinator of the “Integrated Curriculum for Spiritual and Anthroposophical Psychology” (IBAP). Jonas is currently preparing a comprehensive book that delves further into these themes. This book builds upon the foundational work of Steiner and further explores the intersection of reincarnation research, near-death experiences, mediumship, and anthroposophy. Ulrich and Jonas had extensive discussions on the theme, and Ulrich benefited in particular from Jonas’s pointers towards the empirical studies. Jonas has contributed to the writing of the English version of this article.
Contact ulrich.weger@gmx.de and jonas.raggatz@outlook.com

Translation Joshua Kelberman
Illustration Graphic team of the Weekly

1. See, for example: Marek Majorek, “Does the Brain Cause Conscious Experience?” Journal of Consciousness Studies 19, nos. 3/4 (2012): 121–44.
2. For example: J. Beischel, M. Boccuzzi, M. Biuso, & A. J. Rock, “Anomalous information reception by research mediums under blinded conditions II: replication and extension,” Explore 11, no. 2 (Mar./Apr. 2015): 136–142. Journal Impact Factor (JCR 2023): 1.9 (average score is less than 1); Ranking: 22 of 43 in the category of Integrative & Complementary Medicine.
3. M. Sarraf, M. A. Woodley, and P. Tressoldi, “Anomalous information reception by mediums: A meta-analysis of the scientific evidence,” Explore 17, no. 5 (Sept./Nov. 2021): 396–402.
4. J. B. Tucker, “Reports of Past-Life Memories,” in David E. Presti, Mind Beyond Brain: Buddhism, Science, and the Paranormal (New York: Columbia University Press, 2018). See also: J. Tucker, “Children‘s reports of past-life memories: a review,” Explore 4, no. 4 (July 2008): 244–248.
5. J. B. Tucker, “The case of James Leininger. An American case of the reincarnation type,” Explore 12, no. 3 (May/June 2016): 200–207.
6. Moraes et al., “Academic studies on claimed past-life memories: A scoping review,” Explore 18 no. 3 (May/June 2022): 371–378. See also: Ian Stevenson, Twenty Cases Suggestive of Reincarnation (Charlottesville, VA: University Press of Virginia, 1974).
7. Ian Stevenson, Reincarnation and Biology. A Contribution to the Etiology of Birthmarks and Birth Defects (Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers, 1997).
8. M. Beauregard, N. L. Trent, and G. E. Schwartz, “Toward a postmaterialist psychology: Theory, research, and applications,” New Ideas in Psychology 50 (Aug. 2019): 21–33. See also: H. Wahbeh, D. Radin, C. Cannard, and A. Delorme, “What if consciousness is not an emergent property of the brain? Observational and empirical challenges to materialistic models,” Frontiers in Psychology (Sept. 2022).
9. Rudolf Steiner, The World of the Senses and the World of the Spirit, CW 134 (Forest Row, East Sussex: Rudolf Steiner Press, 2014).
10. E.g., Rudolf Steiner, The Inner Nature of Man and Our Life between Death and Rebirth, CW 153 (Forest Row, East Sussex: Rudolf Steiner Press, 2013); Goethe’s Theory of Knowledge with Special Reference to Schiller, CW 2 (Tiburon, CA: Chadwick Library Editions, 2021); The Psychological Foundations of Anthroposophy. Its Standpoint in Relation to the Theory of Knowledge (New York: Anthroposophic Press, 1930–39).
11. E. Kross, M. Berman, W. Mischel, and T.D. Wager, “Social rejection shares somatosensory representations with physical pain,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 108, no. 15 (Mar. 2011): 6270–6275.
12. Rudolf Steiner, Secret Brotherhoods and the Mystery of the Human Double, CW 178 (Forest Row, East Sussex: Rudolf Steiner Press, 2011, repr.), lecture in Dornach on Nov. 13, 1917.