Near death experience and meditation I have been trying to analyse NDE stories from a meditator's point of view. The way people change after a NDE is, in some cases, similar to the changes a person goes through after meditating for a while (i. e. less materialist, more calm, serene, not affraid of dying, less attachment to the "I"...). It is a life changing experience just like meditation when taken seriously.

In general NDE fits well in the Dhamma, showing for instance that the mind does not depend upon the body. 

Let's accept NDE as true for a while.
What I don't get and want some help is: almost all NDE are nice and positive (similarly to going to heaven). In the Dhamma we usually hear that most people are reborn in the awful planes due to their kamma. Some monks even say people sometimes get a glimpse of their future realm of rebirth. That would suggest NDE should be bad and traumatic for most people, but it is not! I don't believe so many people are going to be reborn in heaven, based on the way people live and all ignorance and anger in the world.

Also, most people after a NDE claim to have seen and talked to dead family members or even pets, would that imply necessarily that they were all in the hungry ghost realm? Or could they be devas, but keeping the same old shape?!

I know fitting NDE 100% into the Dhamma may be impossible, but I appreciate any help!
NDE's are true. Just as true as any other experience. When there is seeing, this is the experience of seeing. It arises and ceases.


  “Again, bhikkhus, when walking, a bhikkhu understands: ‘I am walking’; when standing, he understands: ‘I am standing’; when sitting, [57] he understands: ‘I am sitting’; when lying down, he understands: ‘I am lying down’; or he understands accordingly however his body is disposed."
  
  “And how, bhikkhus, does a bhikkhu abide contemplating feelings as feelings? Here, when feeling a pleasant feeling, a bhikkhu understands: ‘I feel a pleasant feeling’; when feeling a painful feeling, he understands: ‘I feel a painful feeling’; when feeling a neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling, he understands: ‘I feel a neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling.’ When feeling a worldly pleasant feeling, he understands: ‘I feel a worldly pleasant feeling’; when feeling an unworldly pleasant feeling, he understands: ‘I feel an unworldly pleasant feeling’; when feeling a worldly painful feeling, he understands: ‘I feel a worldly painful feeling’; when feeling an unworldly painful feeling, he understands: ‘I feel an unworldly painful feeling’; when feeling a worldly neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling, he understands: ‘I feel a worldly neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling’; when feeling an unworldly neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling, he understands: ‘I feel an unworldly neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling."
  
  “And how, bhikkhus, does a bhikkhu abide contemplating mind-objects as mind-objects? Here a bhikkhu abides contemplating mind-objects as mind-objects in terms of the five hindrances. And how does a bhikkhu abide contemplating mind-objects as mind-objects in terms of the five hindrances? Here, there being sensual desire in him, a bhikkhu understands: ‘There is sensual desire in me’; or there being no sensual desire in him, he understands: ‘There is no sensual desire in me’; and he also understands how there comes to be the arising of unarisen sensual desire, and how there comes to be the abandoning of arisen sensual desire, and how there comes to be the future non-arising of abandoned sensual desire.’
      “There being ill will in him … There being sloth and torpor in him … There being restlessness and remorse in him … There being doubt in him, a bhikkhu understands: ‘There is doubt in me’; or there being no doubt in him, he understands: ‘There is no doubt in me’; and he understands how there comes to be the arising of unarisen doubt, and how there comes to be the abandoning of arisen doubt, and how there comes to be the future non-arising of abandoned doubt."
  
  “Again, bhikkhus, a bhikkhu abides contemplating mind-objects as mind-objects [61] in terms of the five aggregates affected by clinging. And how does a bhikkhu abide contemplating mind-objects as mind-objects in terms of the five aggregates affected by clinging? Here a bhikkhu understands: ‘Such is material form, such its origin, such its disappearance; such is feeling, such its origin, such its disappearance; such is perception, such its origin, such its disappearance; such are the formations, such their origin, such their disappearance; such is consciousness, such its origin, such its disappearance.’
      39. “In this way he abides contemplating mind-objects as mind-objects internally, externally, and both internally and externally … And he abides independent, not clinging to anything in the world. That is how a bhikkhu abides contemplating mind-objects as mind-objects in terms of the five aggregates affected by clinging.



Satipatthana Sutta


In this way, seeing is seeing. Trying to prescribe anything else to it in an ultimate sense is false attribution.