Out-Of-Body Experiences Suggest Consciousness Exists Outside The Brain, Scientists Say

What exactly is consciousness, and where does it come from? These questions, once confined to the realms of philosophy and spirituality, are now the subject of serious scientific investigation. For decades, the dominant explanation has been that consciousness arises from the brain—an emergent property of neural activity so complex that it gives rise to our sense of self, perception, and experience. Yet, this explanation still leaves scientists grappling with what many consider the most stubborn mystery in modern science: why do physical processes in the brain produce the rich, subjective inner world we all experience?

Adding new dimensions to this mystery are out-of-body experiences (OBEs)—episodes in which people report perceiving themselves from a perspective outside their physical body. These accounts are often vivid and life-altering, and while traditionally dismissed as neurological anomalies or hallucinations, they are increasingly drawing the attention of researchers willing to consider that such phenomena might reveal deeper truths about the nature of consciousness.

The Hard Problem of Consciousness: Why It Still Baffles Science

Despite monumental advances in neuroscience, psychology, and cognitive science, the fundamental nature of consciousness continues to perplex researchers and philosophers alike. The dominant scientific view has long posited that consciousness emerges from the brain’s activity—a product of billions of neurons firing in coordinated patterns. According to this model, consciousness is not a “thing” in itself but rather the result of the brain processing sensory input, encoding memories, and coordinating behavior. This framework has enabled major breakthroughs in understanding perception, emotion, and decision-making. Yet, when we turn our attention to subjective experience—the sensation of being, the internal world of thoughts, emotions, and self-awareness—it falls notably short.

At the heart of this scientific impasse is what philosopher David Chalmers dubbed the “hard problem” of consciousness. This refers to the difficulty of explaining why and how physical processes in the brain give rise to subjective experience. In other words, even if we could map every neural connection and understand every electrochemical signal, it remains unclear why such physical processes should be accompanied by an inner, felt reality. Why does brain activity result in the experience of color, sound, love, or pain, instead of simply executing unconscious functions like a machine? This gap between observable brain function and lived experience continues to resist explanation and has spurred growing interest in alternative theories.

One such theory gaining attention—though still on the margins of mainstream neuroscience—is the idea of “non-local consciousness.” This hypothesis suggests that consciousness may not be entirely confined within the boundaries of the physical brain. While this may sound radical, it draws support from phenomena that challenge conventional models, particularly reports of out-of-body experiences (OBEs). These episodes, where individuals describe perceiving themselves from outside their own physical body, are difficult to reconcile with the idea that consciousness is strictly brain-bound. Though often dismissed as hallucinations or neurological glitches, OBEs raise important questions that conventional models struggle to answer. Rather than ignoring or minimizing such accounts, some researchers are calling for a broader and more open-minded exploration of what these experiences might signify about the true nature of consciousness.

Out-of-Body Experiences: An Anomaly or a Clue?

Out-of-body experiences (OBEs) are phenomena in which individuals report perceiving themselves from a vantage point outside their physical body. Often described as floating above oneself or observing one’s body from a distance, these experiences can occur spontaneously during moments of extreme stress, trauma, or near-death experiences, as well as in states of deep meditation or relaxation. While many in the scientific community view OBEs as anomalies—perhaps illusions created by the brain under duress—others argue they may hold valuable insights into how consciousness functions and, possibly, where it resides.

What makes OBEs particularly compelling is the consistency across individual accounts, regardless of cultural or personal background. People often describe an uncanny clarity, a sense of detachment from physical pain or fear, and the ability to observe their surroundings in intricate detail. A recent qualitative study published in Frontiers in Psychology examined firsthand narratives from ten individuals who experienced OBEs. Participants used language evocative of profound transformation, describing sensations of entering “another plane of existence” or connecting with a “universal consciousness.” These accounts may sound metaphysical, but the researchers emphasize the importance of documenting them as they are—not dismissing them through the lens of existing scientific biases.

This method of “bracketing” preconceptions, inspired by phenomenological research approaches, aims to honor the integrity of subjective experience rather than force-fit it into existing neurological models. As the study’s authors note, reducing OBEs to mere hallucinations or misfires in the brain overlooks the rich, coherent internal logic many of these experiences possess. Moreover, individuals who have undergone OBEs often report long-term psychological impacts, such as a reduced fear of death or heightened sense of meaning—changes not easily attributed to simple cognitive anomalies. Rather than disregarding these narratives as fringe, some researchers suggest they might offer rare windows into forms of consciousness that challenge our assumptions about its origin and limits.

The Brain’s Role: Neuroscientific Perspectives on OBEs

While out-of-body experiences present a fascinating challenge to conventional ideas of consciousness, many neuroscientists maintain that these episodes can be explained without invoking consciousness existing beyond the brain. Instead, researchers are investigating how specific disruptions or stimulations in brain activity might account for the perception of being outside one’s body. These studies aim to ground OBEs in known neural processes related to spatial orientation, body perception, and self-awareness.

One significant line of research involves brain stimulation in clinical settings. A 2023 study conducted at Stanford University examined patients with epilepsy who had intracranial electrodes implanted for treatment purposes. By stimulating the anterior precuneus—a region involved in integrating sensory information and bodily awareness—researchers were able to induce sensations remarkably similar to OBEs. Participants reported feeling as though their consciousness had shifted position or was no longer aligned with their physical body. These distortions in self-location and perspective suggest that OBEs could result from temporary breakdowns in the brain’s internal model of the body.

Additional evidence comes from studies of the angular gyrus and supramarginal gyrus, areas of the brain implicated in spatial processing and self-other distinctions. In one case, Belgian researchers observed a patient undergoing treatment for tinnitus who experienced disembodiment sensations when electrical stimulation was applied to this region. He described feeling located about half a meter behind and to the left of his body, although he did not visually see himself from that external position. The experience lasted only seconds but offered a rare, measurable glimpse into the brain mechanisms that may underlie OBEs.

Bridging the Divide: Subjective Experience Meets Scientific Rigor

The study of out-of-body experiences (OBEs) lies at a complex intersection between hard science and human experience. On one hand, neuroscience offers measurable insights—mapping brain regions involved in self-perception and replicating OBE-like sensations through electrical stimulation. On the other, firsthand accounts of OBEs frequently describe profound emotional and existential shifts, including feelings of interconnectedness, peace, or even spiritual revelation. These two domains—empirical science and subjective narrative—have traditionally stood in tension, but researchers are increasingly recognizing that both are essential to advancing our understanding of consciousness.

A major challenge in this area is that subjective experiences, by definition, resist objective verification. Unlike a brain scan or behavioral test, a person’s inner reality cannot be externally measured or fully translated into data points. Yet to dismiss these experiences outright risks overlooking potentially critical dimensions of consciousness. The recent study published in Frontiers in Psychology advocates for a more open-minded approach: one that documents and respects what individuals report during OBEs without forcing those narratives to fit existing neurological frameworks. This doesn’t mean abandoning scientific standards—it means expanding them to include phenomenological inquiry alongside biological investigation.

This more holistic perspective is echoed by experts across fields. In cognitive science, there is growing interest in “neurophenomenology”—a method that combines first-person data with neuroscientific analysis to study consciousness. Similarly, in psychology and psychiatry, qualitative research has long been used to explore experiences that defy easy categorization, such as near-death experiences or altered states of consciousness. By integrating these approaches, researchers can better understand not only the mechanics of OBEs but also their meaning and psychological impact.

Moreover, recognizing the validity of subjective experiences could have significant implications for mental health and well-being. People who undergo OBEs often struggle with feelings of confusion or fear, particularly when their experiences are dismissed as pathological or delusional. Validating these episodes as worthy of study—not as signs of disorder but as legitimate aspects of human consciousness—may help reduce stigma and open up supportive pathways for those affected. As the boundaries between disciplines soften, the potential to truly grasp the nature of consciousness may grow not narrower, but wider.

Rethinking Consciousness: A Call for Open Inquiry

Out-of-body experiences, once relegated to the margins of scientific discourse, are beginning to occupy a more serious place in the study of consciousness. Whether seen as products of neural disruption or glimpses into dimensions not yet fully understood, they prompt a reevaluation of long-held assumptions about the nature of the self and the mind. At the very least, OBEs expose the limitations of a purely brain-centric model of consciousness. At most, they may suggest that awareness cannot be wholly explained by physical processes alone.

This does not mean we must accept every extraordinary claim at face value, nor does it call for abandoning rigorous scientific standards. Rather, it underscores the need for humility in the face of a profound mystery. Consciousness is not merely a puzzle to be solved but a dimension of human life that touches every aspect of our existence—from identity and perception to morality and meaning. Exploring it demands both analytical precision and a willingness to engage with experiences that challenge our frameworks.

The way forward lies in synthesis. A robust science of consciousness will not emerge from neuroscience alone, nor from anecdotal testimony in isolation. It will require collaboration across fields: neuroscientists working with phenomenologists, clinicians engaging with patients’ lived experiences, and philosophers helping to frame new questions rather than just answering old ones. For journalists, educators, and the public, it means resisting simplistic narratives—whether purely materialistic or mystical—and embracing complexity.

Most importantly, it calls for a cultural shift in how we treat those who report non-ordinary experiences. Rather than dismissing or pathologizing them, we can choose curiosity over judgment, inquiry over assumption. In doing so, we not only deepen our understanding of consciousness—we affirm the depth and dignity of the conscious beings who live it every day.