What beliefs would we consider reasonable for a self proclaimed Christian to hold?

[Crossless2.0]

These were NDE accounts collected by reputable researchers.  The only reason you want to discount them is because they don't fit your narrative.  That's confirmation bias plain and simple.  You count the hits but ignore (or rationalize away) the misses.  That's only proof that you want so badly to believe that you're willing to distort the evidence to fit.  That only leads to unreliable conclusions based on fallacious reasoning.  If you're willing to distort the evidence because of such strong, irrational bias, why should we believe anything you have to say about NDEs?  We've already seen you present a misleading account of Charles Tart's research.  I read some of the entries on that page you linked to earlier and the facts were either distorted or outright misrepresented in practically all of the ones I examined.  And this type of lying and misrepresentation is common among NDE researchers.  The charge of fake NDE is more justifiably leveled at the accounts of NDEs in general.

It depends on which account of Charles Tart you believe. Anyone can post on Wikipedia and express their views and although I like Wikipedia, it is still biased. Susan Blackmore expressed her opinion, but she was not there. Neither were the others who expressed their opinions. Charles would have continued his study had not the woman moved away. I did nothing to misrepresent the account. What I posted was from the account and I didn't change one word.

*Bolding mine*

Research papers lay out their methodology so others who weren't there can review them and determine if there were problems with the manner in which the experiments were conducted or with the interpretation of the results and, if possible, to repeat the experiments under controlled circumstances to either confirm or disconfirm the previous findings. That's not bias. That's science.