According to literature^[1] the field of near-death studies is associated with discovery, challenges, and controversy. Cant and colleagues^[2] note that "curiosity about the origin and prevalence of NDEs has escalated as technology and resuscitation techniques have improved". The topic attracts a lot of interest, which is reflected in search engine results, medical literature, opinion pieces and commentary. Kopel and Webb^[3] note that there has been a "burgeoning literature on near-death experiences", reflecting both the naturalistic perspectives of neurology and physiology, as well as perspectives that are not naturalistic.

Skepticism towards the findings of near-death studies, and the validity of the near-death experience as a subject for scientific study, has been widespread. According to Knapton, in The Daily Telegraph,^[4] the subject was, until recently, controversial. Both scientists and medical professionals have, in general, tended to be skeptical.^[5][6][7][8] According to commentators in the field^[9] the early study of near-death experiences was met with "academic disbelief". Acceptance of NDEs as a legitimate topic for scientific study has improved,^[5] but the process has been slow.^[10]

According to literature^[11] "psychiatrists have played a role in the recognition of the "near-death" phenomenon as well as popularization of the subject and subsequent research". Kinsella^[12] noted that "Growing scholarly interest has followed popular interest in the subject". While there is not yet any academic consensus as to what the philosophical implications of NDE studies might be, the question of whatever the true and fundamental nature of human consciousness might be yet remains both unanswered, and highly contentious. Still, NDE researchers are in general agreement that NDE research is now a legitimate academic field of scientific research, and many recent discoveries in this field give rise to the hopes by some researchers that a "breakthrough" in the modern day understanding of the dying process may be imminent.^[13]

Kovoor and colleagues^[14] noted that there are some "methodological concerns within many of the prospective studies" mapped by their scoping review. They note that: "Longer-term outcomes may have been biased by clinical characteristics and comorbidities, rather than near-death experiences, and this should remain a pertinent consideration".

Skeptics have remarked that it is difficult to verify many of the anecdotal reports that are being used as background material in order to outline the features of the NDE.^[5][15]

But criticism of the field has also come from commentators within its own ranks. In an open letter to the NDE community, Ring has pointed to the "issue of possible religious bias in near-death studies". According to Ring, the field of near-death studies, as well as the larger NDE movement, has attracted a variety of religious and spiritual affiliations, from a number of traditions, which makes ideological claims on behalf of NDE research. In his view, this has compromised the integrity of research and discussion.^[16]