Hi Juditha,

Thank you!
I like that he doesn’t try to get too involved with his Interpreter.  He just says (maybe paraphrased) that whatever it (his NDE) was, it doesn’t fit the laws of any sciences we use today. 

That’s very basic and not very poetic, but it does provide an opening for those who are holding out for more ‘evidence.’ It seems to say if you want to make NDEs scientifically accurate, then you’re going to have to develop the knowledge that will explain them.

And the way to do that we know is through personal experience. (-: