Some report almost dying and meeting some kind of being and experiencing a taste of the afterlife.  Then they are "sent" back.  These are not evidence of an afterlife for the person is only near death but not dead.
In the very popular book, Embraced by the Light by Betty J Eadie we read many things that show how near death experiences are not reliable accounts of what happens at death.

The Jesus and God she encountered in a near-death experience, an experience in which she claims she really died, taught her that Jesus and God instead of being one being were actually two beings (page 47). Christianity teaches that Jesus and God meaning the Father and the Holy Spirit are one being: three persons in one God.

Page 46 states that she received knowledge from God that nobody has the right to criticise any Church or religion "in any way". If she really believes that, then why does her God and Jesus feel the need to teach her religious as distinct from ethical doctrines that contradict what the historical records say Jesus taught? Jesus criticised the Jewish religion a lot. To criticise a religion is really to criticise a system. If we can't criticise religion then we can't have the right to criticise clubs and associations either. To teach religious ideas that differ from the Church such as Jesus and God being separate beings is criticism of Christianity. And even more so when we see how she could have just mentioned the ethical teachings and taught spirituality and left specifically theological ideas out.

Her doctrine that God does not punish sin contradicts the God of the Bible and much of Protestantism - ie Calvinism. It blasphemes the God of Islam who indeed does punish. Her doctrine that no one Church can take care of every need a person has (page 45) contradicts religions that purport to be the one true faith and to be the one faith that everybody should join. Her God didn't mind her sins and just showered unconditional love on her. A God like that is an unjust God. God needs to punish to be fair. He doesn't check sin. He effectively rewards it.

Her doctrine that we must not deny the presence of illness and problems but merely deny their power over us (page 65) deprives people who need to realise that they do have power over them. It is not fair on them. They need the chance to accept their defeat. Pretending they are not beaten will only make them feel worse.

Page 68 has her telling us that we choose our illnesses and our accidents. She says a person may choose to die as a result of being hit by a drunk driver in order that the driver will be prevented from killing a number of people the following week (page 68). So the person has on some level chosen this way to avert worse evil. She states that suicide is wrong (page 70). She speaks of the spiritual damage it does to the person who kills themselves. If you choose your accident that kills you then perhaps you are choosing your suicide as well. If you can die under the wheels of a drunk driver to save him killing more people then perhaps your suicide somehow enables you to save others? Maybe if you don't commit suicide you will become a serial killer or something? She keeps contradicting herself.
Her visions during her "death" were just that - visions. We can't take them seriously.

No Copyright