I simply couldn’t let go of this book: I read it in one session; I strongly recommend it. The book explores whether there is “life after death,” and, if so, what is “the true meaning of life,” (p. 6).
The author was clinically dead for nine minutes before he was resuscitated, and he uses his near-death experience (NDE) to answer these two questions (p. 7). Over time (he assures the reader), he ruled out its being a dream or a hallucination; he states, “I’ve had time to study dreams and hallucinations. … There’s just no resemblance.” (p. 20) His conclusion is that our aim in life is “learning to love in this world to prepare us well for the next.” (p. 14)
Apart from a few apparent inconsistencies, although the author is definitely Christian, unlike most Christian authors, the doctrines for ‘salvation’ he endorses in his book are not outlandish—they are somewhat universally applicable to all of humanity.
The book contains an exceptional, personal ‘hellish’ near-death-experience (NDE), which is very rare, because most people are not only generally reticent about recounting an NDE, but more so if it’s a frightening or unpleasant one. They figure it has a bearing on their kind of life; but it isn’t necessarily the case, as one can see throughout the book.
In the 1940s Christians (at least Roman Catholics—apparently also Protestants) were obsessed with sins of a sexual nature: teenagers and twenty-year-olds were inculcated with ‘anti-sex’ sermons from the pulpit; so it’s not surprising that the climax of the author’s hellish experience was the punishment for people committing sexual sins. In fact, he refers to “The sex thoughts I could never control,” (p. 58) and again “just the sexual hang-ups and secretiveness of most teenagers” (p. 61).
The author’s near-death experience (NDE) is one of the earliest recorded (1943) in modern times: much prior to Moody’s book, ‘Life after Life’ (1975), the first book written on near-death experiences. However, Ritchie’s book was only published in 1978 (i.e., after Moody’s book). In fact, the terminologies the author uses are the same as those first-coined by Moody; for example, “near-death experience (NDE)” and “out-of-body experience (OBE).”) I got the impression that his account was massaged somewhat, years after the fact.
He claims he had a verifiable ‘roaming’ out-of-body experience (OBE) while he was comatose. He also claims to have foreseen some of the future (i.e., from 1943 to 1952—p. 135), which I find somewhat harder to believe. I can’t see how this is possible since according to theoretical physicist and cosmologist Stephen Hawking, God cannot even know, exactly, the present position and velocity of a single particle simultaneously—let alone that of its future. In his book ‘The Universe in a Nutshell,’ he writes the following regarding Heisenberg’s ‘uncertainty principle’:
“We cannot even suppose that [a] particle has a position and velocity that are known to God but are hidden to us. … Even God is bound by the uncertainty principle and cannot know [both] the position and velocity [simultaneously]; He can only know the wave function [probability].” (p. 107)
That is, unless Hawkins is totally wrong. However, this uncertainty principle is what delivers us from the ‘determinism’ of ‘Classical Physics’ enabling us to exercise our free will. Personally, I think God might know the future of the earth and the universe, but I don’t believe God knows our future: otherwise we would be, sort of, predestined by his knowledge—our ‘free will’ would be just a joke.
Consequently, although I believe most of the author’s experiences, it makes me wonder whether some of his accounts have been embellished a little over time. Moreover, there’s seems to be a lot of thought behind explaining his various ‘hellish’ visions.
Typical of mainstream Christianity, the author apparently believes that Jesus is the Savior of the world; he writes, “I was not condemned, in spite of the ugly actions I had committed. … It was His [Jesus’s] death … that had already paid for these things [sins],” (pp. 132–33). Probably needless to mention, it’s difficult for non-Christians, especially, to relate to this: to believe that a single person paid for all the sins of the whole world. Moreover, according to biblical scholar John Dominic Crossan, ‘Substitutionary Atonement’ is not a commendable Christian doctrine. In fact, in his book ‘God and Empire: Jesus against Rome Then and Now,’ biblical scholar John Dominic Crossan states,
“It is certainly correct … to call Jesus’ death—or in fact the death of a martyr—a sacrifice, but substitution and suffering are not the point of a sacrifice. Substitutionary atonement is bad as theoretical Christian theology just as suicidal terrorism is bad as practical Islamic theology. Jesus died ‘because’ of our sins, or ‘from’ our sins, but that should never be misread as ‘for’ our sins. In Jesus, the [non-violent] radicality of God became incarnate, and the normalcy of civilization’s brutal violence (our sins, or better, Our Sin) executed him. Jesus’ execution asks us to face the truth that, across human evolution, injustice has been created and maintained by violence while justice has been opposed and avoided by violence. That warning, if heeded, can be salvation [our well-being],” (pp. 140–41, emphasis in original).
One can hardly insist, therefore, that Jesus is the Savior of the world: he was simply the victim of the Church and State of his time—as often happens to good people.
The author makes a few references to being “born again” (pp. 63, 73, 133), which, in my opinion, alienates the majority of Christians to his NDE experience. On the other hand, however, he insists that we should treat everyone as our equals: not to be condescending with anyone. The author recommends disregarding religious differences: that is, to treat everyone as equal; avoiding self-righteousness, prejudices, and treating others as inferiors (p. 127).
In several places, the author aptly points out to Jesus’s unconditional love; presumably he means God’s unconditional love, too, because, in Christianity, Jesus is the exact image of his Father—God—if not divine (p. 6). This is consistent with Jesus’s teaching: see the parable of the prodigal son (Luke 15:11–32).
In fact, he also revolutionarily opines that Jesus (and presumably God) never abandons souls, not even in hell. Indeed, he quotes Psalm 139:8, “If I ascend up to heaven, thou [God] art there: if I make my bed in Sheol [the ‘underworld’—the Greek Hades], behold, thou art there,” (p. 128). In fact, the author actually states, “Jesus had been there, in those scenes of Sheol. … That shed a ray of hope, even in hell.” (p. 128) Consequently, I think the author is inconsistent when he says that the suffering in hell is “everlasting” (p. 6) or for “eternity” (pp. 71, 109, 133); here, he is simply repeating mainstream Christian doctrine without thinking.
The author claims he was only allowed to go to the “doorway” of the next life: that is, both hell and heaven (p. 10); he states, “Whatever I saw was only from the doorway, so to speak,” (p. 20).
He is inconsistent, however, when he says, “If I suspected before that I was seeing hell, now I was sure of it,” (p. 75) The reader keeps asking, “Is it hell or not?” Again, here, he inadvertently repeats Christian doctrine, assuming biblical infallibility (divine revelation) when he states, “I had not seen, for instance, the lake of fire recorded in the Bible.” (p. 97) and again he is inconsistent when he writes, “While I had been out of the body … there was no pain. No physical feeling of any kind,” (p. 87). He felt neither cold nor hot (p. 46). Even according to him, souls are non-physical: “substance-less” (pp. 46, 48, 53).
My point is, if souls are bodiless, and cannot feel pain, hot, or cold, I don’t see what would be the use of a “lake of fire” since the suffering he saw in ‘hell’ was only mental?
Not surprisingly, as in books of the same genre, the author’s concepts of heaven are very poor compared with those of hell. It seems that our human imagination is more fertile in portraying misery than happiness. He only makes a casual reference to the ‘New Jerusalem’—the city of God—from the Book of Revelation (p. 85).
Apparently, there is no time or space in the afterlife. Motion (as well as communication) is strictly a thought process; he writes, “In this dimension … travel seemed to take no time at all,” (p. 73).
The author then makes a couple of very good points, in my opinion:
(1) The soul is not judged by Jesus/God, but it judges itself; he writes, “It was I who was judging the events [in a life review] around us so harshly. … No such condemnation came from the glory [Jesus] shining round me,” (p. 63). For the author, Jesus is the “Being” of light, replacing God, or other celestial beings, in non-Christian NDEs.
(2) He aptly thinks that the damned remain in hell only because they choose to; he asks, “What was keeping them here?” They could just walk away; but he adds, “There was a kind of consolation in finding others as loathsome as one’s self,” (pp. 76–77). He opines that this is probably the reason why people stay so long in hell. Their evil or self-centered thoughts only find good company among other obnoxious people. But I think this begs the question: how come the people/souls in heaven couldn’t ‘hear’ the thoughts of those people/souls in hell and vice versa?
On the other hand, according to the ‘Catechism of the Catholic Church,’ the soul doesn’t seem to have much choice, even though the words seem to want to imply a personal choice; we read,
“We cannot be united with God unless we ‘freely choose’ to love him. … To die in mortal sin without repenting … means separating from him for ever by our own ‘free choice.’ This state of definitive ‘self-exclusion’ from communion with God and the blessed is called ‘hell.’” (¶ 1033, p. 221, emphasis mine)
It seems like the Catholic Church wants to have it both ways! It says that it’s ‘our choice’ to go to hell, but it seems to me that God sends us there if we don’t measure up.
Finally, as a result of his near-death experience, although the author still feared the pain in dying suddenly during wartime, he did not fear death any longer; indeed, he wished to die soon because he believes there is full consciousness after this life—and no pain.
Conclusion:
This book is a must-read for Christians; non-Christians might want to mentally replace “Jesus” with “God,” while reading, since the author considers Jesus divine. The author’s account is simply captivating.