---
title: "Root Cause Investigators present empirical model to test for life after death"
url: "https://usubjects.com/article/root-cause-investigators-present-empirical-model-to-test-for-life-after-death-3474"
updated: "2026-09-01T16:01:39.483Z"
description: "Kenneth M. Coon, a former nuclear power professional, presents a new empirical approach that combines near-death experiences and deathbed visions to test for the possibility of life after death, using measurable data and hospice case studies. The article also cites Sam Parnia’s AWARE study, which suggests awareness may occur without measurable brain activity and underscores that consciousness remains poorly understood."
sources: ["https://www.einpresswire.com/article/928561853/root-cause-investigators-radical-new-empirical-model-to-test-for-life-after-death-and-continuation-of-consciousness"]
licence: "All rights reserved"
---

# Root Cause Investigators present empirical model to test for life after death

Published: 2026-08-31  
Source: [Anomalist](https://www.einpresswire.com/article/928561853/root-cause-investigators-radical-new-empirical-model-to-test-for-life-after-death-and-continuation-of-consciousness)

### Overview

A former nuclear power professional is drawing attention in the consciousness research community with a new **empirical framework** he says could help test whether awareness continues after death. **Kenneth M. Coon**, who spent decades in **radiation protection and nuclear event investigation**, is promoting a model that combines **near-death experiences (NDEs)** and **deathbed visions (DBVs)** into a single research design meant to move the afterlife debate away from anecdote and toward measurable data.

Coon’s approach is outlined in a self-published 246-page book, *Scientific Evidence of Life After Death?*, which he describes as a “call to action” for scientists and hospice collaborators. His core argument is that NDEs and DBVs should not be treated as isolated phenomena, but as **interdependent data streams** that may reveal whether consciousness can exist independently of the body. “The goal in writing this book was to provide readers… with a fresh new investigative approach,” Coon said, adding that many existing accounts rely too heavily on “recycled anecdotal stories” rather than scientific methods.

### A method built on investigation, not belief

Coon says his background in **root cause analysis** and **health physics** shaped the design of the model. According to the release, he led multidisciplinary teams for 20 years at the **Palo Verde nuclear power station** and completed more than 40 major investigations under strict deadlines. He also worked for 48 years in radiation protection, a field focused on identifying and measuring invisible hazards such as gamma, neutron, beta and alpha radiation. He argues that the same disciplined approach used to investigate complex industrial events can be applied to consciousness studies.

The model, as described, calls for a **realistic baseline theory**, a **defined experimental group**, a **falsifiable hypothesis**, and **consistent testing**. Coon’s earlier “Brief Report” on the subject was accepted and published this spring in *The Journal of Near-Death Studies*, a publication of the International Association for Near-Death Studies. The press release says the next step requires access to **hospice patients**, which Coon hopes to secure through the book and wider outreach.

### Where the research fits in a larger debate

While the proposal is unusual, it arrives in a field that has long struggled with the basic question of what consciousness is and how, or whether, it survives clinical death. The release cites anesthesiologist **Sam Parnia’s AWARE study**, which explored whether patients can report awareness during cardiac arrest. Some interpretations of that work suggest that **conscious awareness may occur even when measurable brain activity is absent or undetectable**, though the findings remain scientifically contested and do not establish life after death.

That uncertainty is central to why the topic remains difficult to study. **Consciousness is still poorly understood**, and researchers lack a universally accepted method for determining whether subjective experience can persist beyond the brain’s measurable activity. Coon’s proposal attempts to address that gap by combining two reportedly similar end-of-life experiences into a framework that could, in theory, be tested and potentially disproved.

### What comes next

For now, Coon’s model should be understood as a **proposed research agenda**, not evidence that life after death has been demonstrated. Still, it reflects a growing interest among some researchers and experiencers in bringing more structured methodology to a topic often dismissed as speculative. By grounding the discussion in hospice observations, definitions of success, and falsifiable predictions, Coon is trying to make the afterlife question more accessible to scientific inquiry.

Whether his approach gains traction will likely depend on whether collaborators, institutions and hospice settings are willing to engage with a study that pushes into one of science’s most difficult frontiers. For observers of the UAP and consciousness research space, it is another sign that questions once considered purely philosophical are increasingly being reframed in empirical terms.

## Provenance

This USUBJECTS page is a summary or digest of the linked original source. Any accompanying generated visual is an illustrative reconstruction, not evidence.