In April 2006, an important article appeared in a respected medical journal suggesting a relationship between near-death experiences (NDEs) and the body's arousal system, specifically the phenomenon of rapid eye movement (REM) intrusion. In March 2007, the same authors published another article in the same journal, expanding on the previous article's findings and suggesting a relationship between out-of-body experiences (OBEs) and the arousal system. These articles presented lines of evidence and a study to support the hypothesized relationship. In this paper, we acknowledge the viability and potential value of the hypothesis underlying both articles, but identify substantial weaknesses in both the presented lines of evidence and the studies. We conclude with recommendations for future research that would address the hypothesis and would promote a better overall understanding of NDEs and OBEs. Neurology is one of the largest and most respected journals devoted to medical research on the human nervous system. Nelson, the first author of both articles, is a nationally known neurologist. The articles received a lot of media coverage, and despite the authors' diligent efforts to present their study's findings in a balanced manner, the media often inflated those findings beyond what Nelson, Mattingly, Lee, and Schmitt claimed, especially after publication of the first article. For these reasons, a clear understanding of the articles is important both to interested members of the public and to the scholarly field of near-death studies.These articles and their findings were somewhat complex. To help explain them, we first provide some important background information, including a summary of the articles, and then provide our response to them.The first article, by Nelson, Mattingly, Lee, and Schmitt, addressing a possible relationship between near-death experiences (NDEs) and rapid eye movement (REM) intrusion, was longer and more detailed, and its concepts underlay the conclusions of the second article. That extensive first article included some detailed discussions of neurological pathways, listing 91 references. We will not address the neurological pathway discussions. Instead, we will focus primarily on those points we consider most relevant to an understanding of the relationship between NDEs, out-of-body experiences (OBEs), and REM intrusion, a phenomenon we will explain below.We want to say at the outset that we respect and appreciate the contribution Nelson, Mattingly, Lee, and Schmitt have made to the field of near-death studies. They raised a plausible hypothesis. Although we found much to criticize in their methods and findings, we do not want that criticism to be interpreted as lack of regard for them or their efforts. Our heartfelt goal is to encourage future excellent research on NDEs and to encourage open and respectful dialogue.Journal of Near-Death Studies ndst-25-03-02.3d 18/4