It’s a fair enough read, the part about reincarnations more so than others, but written by a female journalist with an agenda, it is lacking objectivity in several areas. There is the typical fallacy of “cherry picking” what she needs to support her agenda and ignoring all else. I picked up on that for the first time when she described the particular case of an out of body experience. A woman whose consciousness supposedly detached from here body enabling here to see several objects she supposedly could not have seen while on the hospital bed. One of the objects was a shoe that lay abandoned on a window sill of a hospital window.
In another paper by another author where the very same case of the claimed out of body experience was closely examined , it is noted that she could have and indeed must have seen the shoe in question as she entered the hospital from the ground level. The angle was just right.
Then of course our journalist falls prey to the oh so typical fallacy of uncalled for assumption that because out of body experiences induced by NDA being generally quite similar no matter the culture and gender, she can (wrongly) conclude that consciousness can and does exist without the brain after death. Well, unfortunately she forgets the simplest of all explanations. We all have brains that pretty much function and consequently react to a similar stimulus the same no matter who we are and where we are from. That I myself had an out of body experience once doesn’t exactly make her professed beliefs look any better. I had my own few seconds of ”heaven” once. I couldn’t feel my body and an indescribable warm feeling flooded through my being. When I entered my body again I was disappointed and to this day I remember that eerily relaxed feeling of being detached from the body. No, I was not on a hospital bed. I was on a 20,000 ft mountain. Yes, my friends it was oxygen starvation, a very stimulating experience for any brain. There is more, but suffice it to say that I remain unconvinced of radiant white lights and shiny rainbow passages to the heavens and especially so by smiling relatives waving from the other side, and with that of life after death as a whole. ( )

I have read several books about the idea that the subconscious continues to exist after the physical body dies. This book pretty much cements my belief in this. Kean's objectivity and rigorous journalist approach is very much appreciated, as well as her reliance on the leading scientific and medical experts in the field. If you read no other books on this subject, read this one. The evidence is compelling. ( )

I found a documentary of the same title on NetFlix. It was a series and I watched every specific subject.

The Netflix adaptation of the book, is so much better than the book. I found the book difficult to read. The writing seemed to drag, and often I had to go back again and again to try to understand just what the author was trying to say.

The chapters contain subjects such as communication from those who have passed on before us, data told from very reputable mediums, and trance mediums.

While difficult to read, I highly recommend the Netflix documentary. The author is very knowledgeable. Perhaps I was tired when I tried to read the book many times. In the end, I can guardedly recommend it. ( )

I got this book directly from the publisher. It’s a pretty good book and I like how it goes hand in hand with the Netflix documentary on reincarnation & NDE. It took me a minute to read it, it’s not one of those that you can read in a day, rather a little bit at a time. I plan on reading her book about UFO’s next. ( )

“Surviving Death” by Leslie Kean
Review written by Diana Iozzia

“Surviving Death” is a book of accounts collected by Leslie Kean that she believes to be proof that there is an afterlife, or consciousness about death. Leslie Kean researched for years about certain people who had near death experiences. The main research type she collected is stories in which children knew information about real life people, but the children did not have any prior knowledge of these people.
I am very skeptical about paranormal research and E.S.P. phenomena. Although Leslie Kean offers the names of many scientists and doctors, the evidence she provides is mostly based on word of mouth. In many occasions in the book, Kean discusses hypothesizes and conclusion. She mentions that hypothesizes should prove the data to be true, but scientific theory asks the data to prove the hypothesis to be true. We cannot use hypothesizes to explain data. Using the Scientific method, if the hypothesis is not proven by the data, the experiment is not accurate and must be tried again.
There are many issues I have with this book. However, they are due to the content of this book, and not how this is written. The book is segmented into chapters, in which new stories are told in each. The first two chapters and half of the third both are about a little boy named James, who knew a great amount of information about a military pilot who died in Iwo Jima. However, can we prove that the parents are completely truthful? If we believe every word they say, can that be technically scientific proof? I don’t buy it.
The writing skills of the author are great. She has a wonderful vocabulary. Her written explanations content makes for a great read, however, the science behind the content is a bit muddled. She is not a scientist, and she bases her research on stories and events she had personally experienced. Can we trust her to be a journalist who tells the truth and nothing but the truth?
The author reiterated a Henry James quote, which is explained by if you don’t look for a difference of opinions, a change in what you believe, if you don’t have an open mind, you may not be enlightened. Does that not leave the burden of proof on the reader? I shouldn’t have to be the one looking for the proof and making sense of the evidence. If something is proved to be true, I shouldn’t have to dissect it to understand it, to find connections and draw conclusions.
I liked this book, because of the head ache it gave me. However, I did not like the content. ( )