Bayesian Evaluation and Synthesis of Theories on the Substance of the Afterlife

Bayesian Evaluation and Synthesis of Theories on the Substance of the Afterlife
DOI 10.5281/zenodo.17075743

Steve Glanz

Author email: sglanz@rcn.com

September, 2025

Abstract: This article evaluates leading hypotheses about the substrate of a putative afterlife—including subtle-energy/vital-force models, quantum information and zero-point field models, higher-dimensional ‘hyperphysical’ accounts, and consciousness-primary (idealist/simulation) frameworks—using a neutral-prior Bayesian lens. We assess how well each predicts empirical survival-of-consciousness evidence (e.g., veridical NDEs, mediumship, psi effects) and recent unification proposals that center information geometry and nonlocal fields. The posterior favors an information-centric hybrid: a consciousness-infused informational field (or ‘mindstuff’) that can exist independently of biological matter yet couple to brains during life. We synthesize these perspectives into a paraphysical continuum—structured, nonlocal, and responsive to intention—offering testable directions for instrumental transcommunication and signal-complexity assays.

Keywords: consciousness, afterlife, survival of consciousness, Bayesian analysis, quantum information field, zero-point field, subtle energy, idealism, simulation hypothesis, higher dimensions, geometry of spacetime, instrumental transcommunication (ITC), near-death experience (NDE), unified physics, morphogenetic field, psychion, transmaterialization

Introduction:
The question of what “substance” or medium could host human consciousness after bodily death has sparked numerous theoretical models in physics and paraphysics. If an afterlife exists, it implies that consciousness must operate in some kind of non-material substrate or realm. Researchers have proposed various possibilities — from exotic physical fields and higher-dimensional spaces to purely informational or mind-based realities. In recent years (circa 2023–2025), a flurry of new theoretical frameworks has emerged to address this question head-on by blending quantum physics, cosmology, and consciousness into unified models [1; 2; 3; 4]. Many of these appear in the transdisciplinary Transmaterialization research forum and converge on the idea that the afterlife realm might be a real, structured part of the cosmos rather than a supernatural exception. Below, we review leading hypotheses about the “stuff” of the afterlife realm and assess their plausibility in light of current evidence (using a Bayesian, evidence-weighted approach). We then synthesize common ideas into a cohesive picture of what the afterlife is made of.

Subtle-Energy Fields and Life-Force Theories: One class of theories posits that the afterlife environment is composed of a subtle energy or vital force not currently recognized in standard physics. This echoes age-old concepts like prana, qi, or the “astral” substance of spiritualist traditions. For example, Wilhelm Reich’s orgone energy — a supposed primordial life-force — has been reexamined as a candidate for the energy of spirit. In modern discussions, orgone is considered a “subtle-energy field” pervading space that can be focused by intention. Researchers in Instrumental Transcommunication (ITC) speculate that such a subtle field might enable spirit communication, effectively bridging minds and electronics. Similarly, Rupert Sheldrake’s idea of morphogenetic fields — organizational fields guiding form and behavior — has been extended beyond biology to consciousness survival. The Unified Geometric Model outlined on the Transmaterialization forum in 2025 integrates these ideas: it layers physical reality with an “orgone/morphogenetic field” that directs and amplifies intent, sitting above the quantum level. In this model, the subtle field (analogous to an astral medium) could be the fabric of an afterlife locale, responsive to thought and intention.

Physicist William Tiller’s “psychoenergetic” framework provides a similar dual-domain picture: our normal electric/magnetic reality is accompanied by a reciprocal domain of oscillatory “delicate” energies (sometimes called deltrons or magneto-electric energies) associated with consciousness and intention. Tiller argues that mind and spirit reside in these higher-dimensional energy domains and can imprint information onto physical systems via a coupling between the domains. In summary, subtle-energy theories hold that the afterlife world is “made of” a finer form of energy or ether — one that interpenetrates physical spacetime but is not composed of ordinary atoms. This energy is often described as massless, fluidic, and information-rich, forming an unseen matrix that can carry consciousness [5; 6]. Supporters point to experiments in healing and telepathy that suggest human intention can influence random physical systems, as indirect evidence of a biofield or “psi field.”

Notably, some recent theories recast such subtle energy in more concrete physical terms. Sociologist Paul Mocombe’s Consciousness Field Theory (CFT) is one example: it proposes that consciousness is an emergent fifth force of nature, carried by a quantum unit called the psychion [7]. In this view, the “consciousness field” is composed of psychions (a proposed subtle particle) which transmit individual minds (the ego) as wave patterns [7]. Mocombe suggests that upon bodily death, those psychions decouple from the brain and either reintegrate into new organisms (reincarnation) or diffuse into an “absolute vacuum” field as an endless, nonlocal reservoir of consciousness [8]. This concept aligns with ancient ideas of a spiritual essence, but frames it in physicalist terms — essentially a new fundamental field in physics.

From a Bayesian perspective, the prior probability of entirely new energy fields might be considered low given the success of known physics — unless and until empirical evidence (e.g. reproducible orgone or “psi” effects) appreciably shifts the odds. Still, given substantial anecdotal and experimental literature on biofield healing and psychic phenomena [9; 10], one could assign a modest prior credence to subtle-energy models. The occurrence of veridical apparitions or physical mediumship (where unseen forces produce real effects) can be treated as evidence updating this credence upward, since such phenomena are hard to explain without an extra energy or force hypothesis. Thus, while speculative, the subtle-energy substrate is consistent with many afterlife observations (e.g. “etheric” bodies, energy orbs, healing lights), and its plausibility may rise if standard models remain unable to account for those anomalies.

Quantum Information Fields and the Zero-Point Field:
A second set of theories locates the afterlife “substance” in the known fabric of quantum physics — specifically in fields of information woven into space itself. Modern physics recognizes that even “empty” vacuum space is teeming with fluctuating fields (the zero-point energy field, or ZPF). Some scientists propose that consciousness might persist in this ubiquitous field as an organized pattern of information. For instance, physicist Dirk K. F. Meijer (2024) outlines a model in which a field of universal consciousness interacts with the brain via quantum processes, and at death the individual’s information merges back into that field. In his model, the brain is like a transceiver tapping into a “4-dimensional quantum information flux” from a deeper reality; when bodily inputs cease, the personal mind (a “field-receptive resonant workspace” or soul) decouples from the body but remains intact in the ZPF-based information realm. Crucially, Meijer notes that quantum information is never destroyed — a principle of physics suggesting memory and consciousness could survive physical death as patterns in an enduring field.

Related to this, the holographic principle in theoretical physics has inspired afterlife speculation. The universe might be fundamentally a “giant hologram that permeates everything,” wherein each part contains the whole [11]. If so, our individual consciousness could be like a holographic projection from a deeper level of reality; death would simply remove the projection, allowing the consciousness to exist in the underlying holographic field. This resonates with interpretations of quantum entanglement — a nonlocal connectivity that some say could underlie telepathy or spirit communication. Several authors (e.g. Haramein et al., 2016; Hardy, 2019) speak of a universal information network — essentially a web of Planck-scale wormholes or quantum connections — that records all conscious experiences and interlinks minds beyond space-time [12; 13]. By this view, the afterlife realm might literally be an information matrix: a nonlocal field encoding the state of every consciousness (likened to the “Akashic field” or a cosmic memory bank). The Integrated Information Theory (IIT) of consciousness, though not originally about afterlife, dovetails with this idea — it treats consciousness as a structure of integrated information, suggesting that if the information pattern can be preserved outside the brain, the conscious experience might continue [14].

In 2025, a number of unified physics proposals explicitly embraced this information-centric paradigm. For example, Marcel Krüger’s Helix-Light-Vortex (HLV) theory asserts that space itself is not a continuous void but a discrete, quantized lattice of “space-bits” at the Planck scale, each shaped like a dodecahedron and arranged in Fibonacci–Golden Ratio order [15]. In the HLV model, all fundamental physical properties emerge from waves and resonances in this geometric vacuum lattice. Crucially, HLV integrates consciousness by positing it as “a fundamental physical field, resonating with complex biological systems like the brain”, thereby bridging the matter–mind divide [15]. Gravity in this model is reconceived as an “information pressure” arising from a universal information field Φ acting on the space-bit lattice [15]. Such a picture implies that the afterlife might consist of enduring information patterns in a structured geometric field — essentially, the conscious mind as a persistent wave within a cosmic information lattice. Another novel framework, Edivaldo Costa Sousa Jr.’s Thermodynamic Holographic Entanglement Theory (T-HET), goes even further in making information fundamental. T-HET describes reality as a “structured entropic manifold” where spacetime, matter and forces emerge from the dynamics of a scalar field of local entanglement entropy [16]. In other words, physical laws originate from structured informational flow governed by logical coherence [16]. Instead of assuming spacetime or quantum fields as primary, it treats them as emergent from an underlying information-theoretic substrate. While T-HET is a broad unification of physics, its implication for consciousness is that information is conserved and structured at the deepest level of reality — suggesting that conscious information could persist as an entropic pattern or attractor in that substrate even after the brain’s dissolution.

Likewise, Narayan Bhadra’s “Complex Quantum State of Consciousness” (2025) offers a cosmological quantum model of mind [17]. Although details of Bhadra’s framework are pending publication, the premise is that consciousness corresponds to a state vector in a cosmological quantum field. This hints that an individual mind may have a global, perhaps non-local, quantum character that is not confined to the brain — potentially continuing as part of the cosmic quantum wavefunction after bodily death. Such ideas resonate with earlier suggestions by physicists like Evan Harris Walker and Amit Goswami, who speculated that consciousness might be associated with the quantum vacuum or the wavefunction of the universe.

From a Bayesian standpoint, quantum-field models gain plausibility because they extend (rather than contradict) known physics. We already accept that fields and information are fundamental in physics; the new conjecture is that organized information structures in these fields correspond to minds. Notably, some support comes from near-death experiences where consciousness persists with clear memory and perception even when the brain is clinically inactive — this can be seen as evidence favoring an external information repository or field supporting consciousness [12; 13]. The posterior probability for quantum information theories rises further if we account for phenomena like verified out-of-body perception (veridical NDEs) — which imply a mechanism for mind to obtain information remotely, consistent with a nonlocal field. Thus, among our hypotheses, those involving a universal quantum or holographic information field have increasingly been viewed as highly plausible in survival-of-consciousness research [12]. Indeed, the fact that multiple independent lines of research (quantum biology, psi experiments, cosmology) all point toward information-centric interpretations of consciousness bolsters the Bayesian likelihood that consciousness can exist as an entity in its own right within an information field.

Higher-Dimensional Space and “Hyperphysical” Matter:
Another category of answers holds that the afterlife realm is literally a part of the cosmos — just not the part we directly see. These theories invoke extra spatial dimensions or parallel planes of reality, often described as higher vibrational or subtle realms. For example, hyperdimensional physics proponents like Chris H. Hardy (2015) argue that consciousness operates in additional spatial dimensions beyond the 3+1 of physical life. In these models, a human is a multidimensional being: the physical body in 3-D space, and a co-existing “subtle body” extending into a higher-dimensional space. Death then is “not an ending but a dimensional transition” [18], wherein the locus of awareness shifts fully into the higher-dimensional form. One concrete example is Matti Pitkänen’s Topological Geometrodynamics (TGD), which posits a stratified multiverse of space-time sheets. He associates life and mind with a special “magnetic body” — an extended field structure around the organism — that could detach and survive in a higher space-time sheet after death [19]. Likewise, Claudio Messori’s cosmogonic model distinguishes two imbricated physical domains: the ordinary energy domain and a parallel tension domain [20]. Messori suggests that mind is essentially “made of tension” — i.e. stress or curvature in that second, non-electromagnetic plane of reality [20]. In his view, the mental domain is a real physical realm composed of gradients of a novel substance (“tension”), and the brain merely mediates between the energy-plane and this tension-plane. Survival of consciousness then means the person’s tension-pattern (mind) continues on its own plane, no longer coupled to the energy body [20].

Building on such concepts, the Transmaterialization project proposed a Unified Transmaterial Geometric Model (UTGM) to encompass multiple planes and forces. This model enumerates a hierarchy of interpenetrating layers of reality [13]. Physical matter and known fields occupy the lowest levels (L1–L4), but above them are more elusive structures: a nonlocal “spacememory network” (L5) that links distant points instantaneously, and “non-physical fibers” (L6) enabling specialized interactions like telepathy or psychotronic influence [13]. Further up, a fractal substrate (L7) provides scale-invariant structure, connecting the micro and macro realms, and an ultimate unity level (L8) represents a convergent cosmic consciousness or source [13; 21]. In plainer terms, UTGM suggests that beyond our familiar 4D spacetime lie additional hidden dimensions or fields that have geometric and network-like properties — a bit like a cosmic neural network or fabric. Consciousness and afterlife phenomena in this view would inhabit the L5–L8 range of the cosmos: a spatially extended but nonlocal information continuum with its own topology and laws, coexisting with the physical plane. Notably, UTGM and related efforts integrate modern geometry insights (e.g. fractal golden-ratio lattices) with these layers. For instance, researchers have drawn parallels between Adam Apollo’s 64-tetrahedron grid (a proposed fundamental geometry of spacetime) and other geometric patterns where golden ratio resonance appears [22]. The implication is that the afterlife “space” might have a definite geometric structure or metric, albeit subtler and higher-dimensional. It may be a quantized, scale-connected lattice (as HLV posits) or a network of wormhole-like links (as spacememory ideas suggest), rather than a vague void.

How plausible are such geometric and higher-dimensional hypotheses? Historically, physics has expanded into higher dimensions (as in string theory’s 10+ dimensions) to unify forces. The prior probability we assign to extra dimensions existing might be moderate (some mainstream theories need them), but the specific idea of a dimension specifically hosting consciousness is novel. We would update our belief in it if evidence shows spatial-like characteristics of afterlife phenomena — for example, the fact that NDEers often describe entering locations or landscapes, meeting others in a vivid world, could hint that some “where” exists for them, albeit not a location in our familiar space. Additionally, the pattern that apparitions are sometimes localized (hauntings tied to places) yet at other times seemingly nonlocal (a dying person’s spirit appearing across the world) suggests a complex spatial topology — possibly explained by extra dimensions or a spacememory network. In Bayesian terms, multiple independent reports of structured environments in NDEs and mediumistic communications lend credence to the notion of an objective “astral geography,” thus boosting the higher-dimensional hypothesis. Still, without a way to directly probe these dimensions, this remains an intriguing but hard-to-verify scenario. It is often conceptually combined with the previous (fields): e.g. a 4th spatial dimension could be the space where a subtle energy or information field exists — so these need not be competing ideas but complementary descriptions (geometry vs. field). Indeed, many recent models (UTGM, HLV, T-HET) straddle both interpretations: they speak in terms of geometric/topological structures (lattices, networks, extra coordinates) and in terms of information flowing or resonating through those structures. The afterlife, in such integrative models, would be “made of” structured geometry carrying information and consciousness.

Consciousness-Primary (Idealist) and Simulation Models:
A radical alternative flips the question on its head: rather than asking what physical substance underlies the afterlife, it posits that consciousness itself is fundamental, and physical reality is a derivative illusion. In philosophical idealism, all that truly exists is mind or experience; the afterlife, then, is simply mind continuing in its natural, non-physical state. One modern take is the “virtual reality” simulation hypothesis championed by astrophysicist Bernard Haisch (2014). Haisch argues that the universe “might be akin to a virtual simulation, where every particle in the universe behaves according to a pre-defined code.” [12] He proposes that a transcendent consciousness (think of it as a cosmic Mind) is running a mental simulation of a physical universe [12]. In his words, “some transcendent consciousness has created not a physical reality, but a virtual reality… We, as consciousness, are real; matter…is a simulation.” [13] If this is true, then the “afterlife” is simply when our individual consciousness (a subset of the universal Mind) exits the simulation — akin to taking off a VR headset. The substance of the afterlife would then be consciousness itself or “mind-stuff,” not energy or matter at all. This aligns with cognitive scientist Donald Hoffman’s Conscious Realism, which posits that space-time and objects are merely a user interface for interactions of fundamental conscious agents [23]. After death, on this account, we cease to be constrained by the interface (the body and physical world) but continue to exist as a node in the network of interacting consciousness. One might picture the afterlife “space” as analogous to a shared dream or a cloud of thought — reality as information and qualia, not located in space-time.

These idealist and simulation models have a certain parsimony: they require only one fundamental substance (mind) instead of two (mind and matter). They also elegantly explain why consciousness can do seemingly non-physical feats (ESP, apparitions, etc.) — because the “physical” is just how consciousness chooses to appear. The challenge, of course, is that these models are difficult to test. Bayesian analysis of idealism would note that it was perhaps an a priori unlikely view in classical science (which assumed matter was fundamental), but accumulating evidence of independent consciousness (NDEs, psi phenomena) has forced many to update their probabilities in favor of mind-based ontology. If minds can transcend brains (which empirical data from mediums and NDEs suggest they do, to some extent), then the likelihood that reality is fundamentally mental increases. In effect, the materialist “null” hypothesis has been losing Bayesian credence as more anomalies surface that it can’t account for [12; 24]. Meanwhile, an idealist or simulation hypothesis naturally accommodates life after death (since the death of the avatar doesn’t kill the player).

Some contemporary idealist models do give more detailed mechanisms. For instance, physicist Nassim Haramein and colleagues speak of a “unified spacememory network” — essentially a field of consciousness/information underpinning reality [12]. In such a model, the physical world is emergent from a cosmic information processor (a Mind), and discarnate existence would mean operating within that informational network without a bodily interface. Along similar lines, Vernon Neppe and Edward Close’s TDVP (Triadic Dimensional Vortical Paradigm) treats consciousness as a real, quantifiable aspect of reality (“gimmel”) that always accompanies mass and energy [25]. They argue this nonphysical component is necessary for the stability of fundamental particles and is inherently linked to consciousness [25]. In their framework, our individual consciousness is a subset of a higher-dimensional “Consciousness domain,” and death simply means that individual unit returns fully to that domain (much as a drop of water returning to the ocean). This idea — that consciousness is an ontological primitive — has been articulated by philosopher Bernardo Kastrup (2019) and others, making a strong case that the empirical data now fits an idealist interpretation better than a materialist one.

Notably, one of the new physics proposals, Andre Dupke’s Scale-Time Dynamics (2025), takes an explicitly consciousness-first stance while still presenting a mathematical framework. Dupke’s model introduces an all-encompassing “scale-time resonance field” spanning every size and time scale of the universe [26]. It places “consciousness at the geometric foundation of reality,” effectively building physics on a conscious substrate [3; 26]. This is an idealist paradigm in scientific clothing: rather than matter generating mind, mind (as resonance and information) generates what we experience as matter and time. In practical terms, a model like Scale-Time suggests that the afterlife is not a separate realm at all, but simply the continuing operation of fundamental consciousness when the local physical apparatus falls away. Reality itself, in this view, is a continuum of consciousness, and what we call physical life and afterlife are just different phases or focus points within that continuum. Likewise, some thinkers in AI and consciousness research have pointed out that if consciousness is fundamental, true sentience may require a connection to this foundational field — something current AI lacks [27]. This underscores that the “medium” of consciousness might be something inherent in the universe’s fabric, not an emergent property of complex algorithms, lending credence to the idea that human minds could persist independently of biological matter.

Evaluating the Theories (Bayesian Reasoning):
How do we decide which of these theories (if any) is closest to the truth? A Bayesian approach means we compare how well each theory predicts or explains the empirical evidence we have about survival of consciousness, and update our confidence accordingly. Initially, one might assign prior probabilities to each broad class of theory based on simplicity and consistency with known science. For example, a conservative prior might favor the quantum-information hypothesis (since it extends established physics only slightly) over a brand-new energy field (which adds more assumptions), with the idealist/simulation hypothesis somewhere in between (it drastically revises ontology but potentially simplifies the mind–matter problem).

Next, consider key evidence from survival research: verified near-death experiences (including accurate perceptions from outside the body), mediumistic communications containing verifiable information, children’s past-life memories with historical confirmation, apparitions with physical interactions, and even laboratory psi results (telepathy, remote viewing, etc.). All these phenomena strongly indicate that consciousness can obtain information independent of the biological brain and sometimes affect physical systems. A theory that inherently allows minds to exist and interact outside the brain will a priori fit better. For instance, a strict materialist null hypothesis (no afterlife, mind = brain) would essentially assign near-zero likelihood to such evidence occurring — thus the observation of even one veridical NDE or one accurate mediumistic message should drastically lower our belief in that null hypothesis. By contrast, a consciousness-field theory expects that mind can separate and acquire information nonlocally, so it assigns a higher likelihood to NDEs and ESP; seeing those phenomena occur therefore boosts the posterior probability that a consciousness-field is real.

Among our candidate models, which predicts the data best? Let’s briefly assess:

• Subtle energy field models: They predict that ghostly apparitions or spiritual presences might sometimes be associated with energetic effects or measurable forces. Indeed, there are reports of temperature drops, electromagnetic disturbances, or inexplicable camera anomalies in hauntings — these qualitatively align with the idea of an unseen energy manifesting. Subtle-field models are also compatible with healing effects and psi as flows of a life-energy. However, they struggle to explain highly information-specific transfers (e.g. a medium delivering a precise obscure fact) unless one also grants that the energy is guided by intelligent mind, or carries information as modulations. Pure “dumb” energy alone wouldn’t produce coherent messages. Thus, subtle-energy alone is likely insufficient; it works in concert with an information field or conscious intelligence. The evidence for broad psi effects (decreasing with distance, or needing “energy” to boost signal as mediums often say) does lend some support to an energy component. So we update subtle-energy models upward modestly. The existence of hypotheses like Mocombe’s (with a concrete particle) also moves it closer to physics, making it a bit more plausible. But because these models introduce new entities (new fields/particles), they carry a complexity penalty unless validated by experiment.
• Quantum information field models: These predict nonlocal correlations of information (check — telepathy and shared NDE visions fit that), retention of information after brain death (check — mediums retrieving verifiable memories from deceased persons), and even physical effects like electronic voice phenomena (EVP) if discarnate minds can imprint on random electronics via micro-fluctuations. Indeed, experiments have found odd correlations in random number generators during global events and possibly around moments of death (e.g. PEAR and Global Consciousness Project data), hinting that mind might affect quantum randomness. Nicolas Rouleau (2022) reviewed physical anomalies at death and concluded that “the evidence points to some form of information conservation or transfer” beyond the body [28]. Such evidence gives the quantum/holographic model a strong Bayesian boost. It also has theoretical backing: as mentioned, conservation of quantum information and the holographic storage of information are mainstream physics ideas [16]. The main open question is whether conscious organized information can be maintained and self-aware in those fields — not yet proven, but increasingly plausible as theories like HLV and T-HET provide mechanisms. Overall, the quantum-information paradigm currently seems to have one of the highest posterior probabilities: it elegantly bridges physics and reported phenomena, and requires fewer new entities (it repurposes the known zero-point field or entanglement networks as carriers of mind). The accumulation of supportive data (veridical NDEs, quantum brain effects, etc.) continues to nudge its credibility upward.
• Higher-dimensional (hyperphysical) models: These predict that afterlife experiences will have spatial and temporal qualities reminiscent of physical life (which they do — people consistently describe vivid realms, bodies, meetings, and even cities or learning centers in NDEs and mediumistic reports). They also might predict new particles or forces that correspond to higher-dimensional matter (for instance, some theories speak of “shadow matter” or axion-like particles that could be physical traces of higher planes). We haven’t clearly detected such things yet, unless one counts dark matter or unexplained sources of energy as hints. The evidence of geometric structure in afterlife narratives is a soft clue; it’s suggestive but not definitive, since one could argue the mind simply constructs a spatial illusion. However, the consistency and complexity of these reports (including cases where multiple experiencers report meeting each other in an out-of-body state) increase the likelihood that an objective framework (a place or dimension) underlies the phenomena. The Bayesian update on extra dimensions is thus moderate but positive. Additionally, some physical anomalies — like the paradoxes of quantum nonlocality or the fine-tuning of the universe — sometimes motivate extra-dimensional solutions, indirectly supporting the feasibility of hidden layers. As more unified models like UTGM provide a blueprint for how multiple layers interact (even suggesting experiments, e.g. detecting “connection fibers” via psychotronic devices), we may get new evidence. In summary, hyperphysical models are plausible and nicely accommodate the richness of afterlife environments, but we await a more concrete test (perhaps some cross-dimensional interaction that can be measured).
• Consciousness-primary (idealist) models: These arguably started with a low prior in the scientific community, but have gained considerably in posterior probability as other models struggle to explain the full range of evidence. Idealism essentially predicted from the outset that material limits could be broken by mind (since matter is just mind’s appearance). Thus phenomena like ESP, psychokinesis, or accurate past-life memories are not anomalies at all under idealism — they are expected to occur occasionally if minds are fundamentally connected or if reality’s rules are malleable by consciousness. The strong statistical results of consciousness-related anomalies (such as Ganzfeld telepathy experiments, presentiment experiments, etc.) have therefore tilted the scales. Moreover, idealism gets a boost because it can harmonize all the other frameworks: one can say subtle energies, quantum fields, and extra dimensions all exist, but they exist within consciousness (rather than apart from it). When comparing to the data, an idealist would point out that every observation we have (including all physics data) is ultimately a content of consciousness, so it’s actually more parsimonious to have consciousness be fundamental. The challenge for idealism is producing specific, novel predictions that distinguish it from a well-tuned physicalist model. However, one could argue the surge of interest in consciousness-centric physics (like Dupke’s work, or attempts to test psi abilities under controlled conditions) is itself an outcome of Bayesian updating: the scientific Bayesian agent has seen enough black swans (anomalies) that it’s increasingly weighting the hypothesis “mind might be primary.” The idealism/simulation view naturally implies an afterlife (since consciousness doesn’t depend on matter), so all evidence of survival directly strengthens it. Perhaps the strongest evidence elevating idealism is the consilience of survival phenomena: it’s not just one type of observation but many (NDEs, apparitions, mediumship, reincarnation cases) pointing to life beyond the brain. No strictly material theory explains those collectively well, whereas idealism can say all those phenomena are various forms of consciousness interacting with itself, sometimes outside the rules of the physical “game.” Therefore, many researchers now consider a consciousness-centric ontology as a serious contender [26; 29]. Still, the idealist stance, to be scientifically useful, often borrows the language of other models (fields, dimensions, etc.) to describe how consciousness manifests in orderly ways (for example, an idealist might happily adopt a spacememory network model, but call it a “thought network”). So in practice, the distinction between a highly advanced field model and an idealist model may blur — they could be describing the same thing from two sides (one from inside experience, one from outside perspective).

In weighing all these, a prudent Bayesian might currently assign the highest credence to some hybrid of the quantum-information and consciousness-primary models — essentially an information-based idealism. This hybrid acknowledges that an informational field or matrix underlies reality (so it accounts for physics), but posits that this matrix is inherently conscious (accounting for subjective experience). Such a view is gaining traction, as seen in proposals like Mocombe’s CFT (consciousness as a field of quantum units) and Dupke’s resonant field (consciousness as cosmic field), which are not mutually exclusive. Indeed, the two can be seen as describing a single phenomenon: a field of conscious information. In Bayesian terms, as each new experiment or observation comes in (be it a better-controlled mediumship study, or a quantum brain detection of entanglement in neurons, etc.), we update the probability distribution over these models. So far, no definitive falsification has occurred for the survival-conducive models, and the sheer accumulation of diverse evidence has markedly lowered the odds for the “mind annihilated at death” position.

Toward a Synthesis — What Is the Afterlife “Made Of”?
Rather than mutually exclusive, many of these theories can be seen as describing aspects of the same underlying reality from different angles. Taking the strongest elements of each, we can sketch a synthesized model of the afterlife environment: It is not composed of ordinary atomic matter, but of an information-rich, conscious substrate that underlies matter. In modern terms, we might call this substrate a field — but one unlike any field in the standard model of physics (or perhaps a novel extension of known fields). This “afterlife field” is structured: it may have layers or regions corresponding to different states of being, it likely has geometric properties (possibly a lattice or network at the Planck scale, with fractal self-similarity across scales), and it carries information (much like a hologram or a vast memory bank). It is, in effect, a mind-space: a domain in which thoughts, memories, and intentions are the fundamental reality, and what we think of as energy or matter are secondary manifestations.

Various researchers use different terminologies for this substrate. To a subtle-energy proponent, it is a vital field or etheric plane. To a quantum physicist, it might be a quantum information field or zero-point field with structured entropy. In unified geometry models, it appears as a SpaceMemory network, a lattice of space-bits, or a scale-time field underpinning spacetime [13; 15; 26]. And to an idealist philosopher, it is simply Consciousness itself, the ground of all being. Despite differences in language, these notions share remarkable overlaps. All propose something invisible yet fundamental, something that links distant points or minds (nonlocality) [13], something that stores information (memory record) [12], something that responds to intentionality (ideas of “mind over matter,” observer effect), and something that has lawful structure or dynamics (not random chaos, but an organized domain) [15; 16].

A synthesized description might be: the afterlife is made of “mindstuff,” which behaves like a field of organized information.” This mindstuff has energetic aspects (it can interact with physical energy under certain conditions), and it has spatial aspects (people in spirit report environments, which implies an extended order), but its primary quality is subjective experience or consciousness. One could say it is psychic energy shaped into informational patterns. The scientific analog would be a complex quantum state or a nonlocal field excitation that encodes a person’s identity and memories. For instance, HLV’s universal info field Φ and consciousness field Ψ could be thought of as the medium; T-HET’s entropic scalar field S_ent could be the “substance” that flows and forms structures (attractors that might correspond to souls); Scale-Time’s resonance field could be the vibrating matrix that holds it all. In each case, the essence is that beyond the physical atoms and forces, there is an extra layer to reality where information and consciousness live.

Crucially, this synthesized model accounts for why afterlife experiences have the properties they do. People often describe afterlife bodies as “bodies of light” or “energy bodies” — consistent with the idea of organized energy or information forming a body-like pattern. They describe communication as telepathic and environments that respond instantly to thought — suggesting a medium where thought is action, i.e. a mind-centric physics. They also report that time behaves differently (past and future can be seen, or there is an eternal now) — which makes sense if the substrate is a timeless information domain (holographic records, or a higher-dimensional space where our linear time is just one projection). The synthesized view predicts these features because if consciousness exists in a nonlocal field, it is not bound by one point in space or one moment in time. Instead, it could access anything in the field given the right conditions (hence life reviews, or meeting deceased relatives “on demand”).

This view also implies a continuity between physical life and afterlife. During life, our brains might be tuning into or filtering the consciousness field — a notion suggested by multiple theorists (Myers, James, Bergson, and more recently Carter, 2010). When the brain dies, the filter is removed and consciousness expands into the larger environment of the field. In the words of the great psychologist William James, the brain may be a “reducing valve” for a broader consciousness; death opens the valve entirely. Modern analogies compare the brain to a radio receiver or a VR headset: the signal (mind) is nonlocal, the receiver (brain) localizes it to a channel; death is like the radio breaking while the signal persists in the broadcast field. Many theories we’ve discussed explicitly endorse this analogy. For example, Meijer (2024) speaks of the brain as a transceiver for a 4D information flux; Apollo’s geometry-based theory (as summarized in Transmaterialization) suggests “consciousness itself is structured vibrationally—as geometry, color, frequency” and the brain tunes into these vibrations. In an afterlife scenario, without the brain’s narrow tuning, one might experience a much richer reality — a broader spectrum of that vibrational geometry (hence reports of indescribable colors or sounds in NDEs).

It is worth noting that this synthesis is not just abstract; it points toward experimental directions. If the afterlife medium is an objective information field, we might be able to detect or interact with it technologically. Indeed, the field of ITC (instrumental transcommunication) has this goal: devices to bridge our physical world and the supposed spirit world. Some experiments, like Alexander MacRae’s “Alpha” device in the 1980s, attempted to use bio-electromagnetic sensors to convert subtle physiological changes (possibly influenced by spirits) into audible signals [30]. Others have used random event generators, audio noise, or even lasers. The results have been mixed, but occasionally intriguing voices or images have reportedly been captured. The existence of these efforts underlines a key point: if the afterlife realm has a lawful existence (made of something real), we should eventually be able to develop tools to probe it. For example, one recent idea involves applying Assembly Theory (a way to measure the complexity of signals) to EVP recordings, to distinguish genuine anomalous messages from random noise. A complex, information-rich signal appearing in a controlled noise source could indicate an intelligent origin from the other side — indirectly revealing the presence of that informational medium. These engineering approaches treat seriously the notion that the afterlife realm is not “supernatural” at all, but part of nature — just a part composed of finer or higher-order elements that we are only beginning to fathom. As one essayist put it, we may be on the cusp of a “trans-materialization technology” era, where advances in science and engineering allow interaction with these subtle domains [31]. The philosophical debate of “naturalism vs. technological evolution” in survival research centers on this: whether acknowledging and studying an afterlife field is a legitimate scientific evolution or a breach of materialist orthodoxy [31]. Increasingly, researchers defend the pursuit, arguing that exploring the afterlife medium is a natural extension of physics — an expansion of the “narrative” to include conscious information as part of the cosmos, rather than a rejection of science.

Conclusion:
In summary, while no final consensus exists, a common thread across theoretical frameworks is that if an afterlife realm exists, it consists of an information-bearing, conscious substrate beyond ordinary matter. In effect, this substrate can be thought of as “mindstuff” — an ontological primitive that can interact with physical systems but also exist independently of them. Theories differ on the details: one might emphasize an exotic energy (orgone, psi field, “psychion” particles), another a hidden space or dimension (a 5th-dimensional landscape or a spacetime lattice), another pure information (a holographic code or simulation), and yet another pure consciousness (a boundless field of mind). Yet these ideas are converging. The emerging view is one of a paraphysical continuum: a spectrum from dense matter to subtle mind, all embedded in a single unified reality. Within that continuum, the “afterlife” is not a mystical elsewhere; it is the inner architecture of reality — the informational scaffolding upon which our physical existence is built, and to which our minds return when biological life ends.

As Haisch (2014) provocatively wrote, “all of reality may be consciousness, with matter being a simulated byproduct” [13]. In such a case, asking “what is the afterlife made of?” is essentially asking “what is consciousness made of?” — and the answer would be self-existent information or experience itself. On the other hand, from a more physicalist angle, Mocombe and others would answer: the afterlife is made of a fifth-force field of consciousness, composed of psychions swirling in an unseen vacuum [7; 8]. Interestingly, these two answers are not as far apart as they sound: both invoke a real, non-material something that upholds the mind.

Looking ahead, future research — from improved ITC devices to rigorous quantum brain studies — will continue testing these ideas. It’s conceivable that in coming decades we will better map the contours of the “afterlife” medium, perhaps identifying specific frequencies or geometric signatures of consciousness. For now, the leading theories and evidence compel us to update our Bayesian priors: we have substantial reason to believe that our cosmos includes more than meets the eye. The afterlife, as a domain of organized conscious information, fits increasingly well into a scientifically expanded worldview. Humanity’s age-old intuitions of a soul and a hereafter may soon find validation in the language of quantum fields and cosmic geometry. And when asked, “What is it made of?”, we might finally be able to say: it is made of the same thing that makes us — consciousness woven through space and time, the invisible tapestry on which the drama of life (and afterlife) is embroidered.

References

1. Krüger, M. (2025). Helix-Light-Vortex (HLV) Theory: A Unified Geometrical Framework for Space, Matter, and Consciousness. [Preprint].
2. Sousa Junior, E. C. (2025). *Thermodynamic Holographic Entanglement Theory (T-HET V3): A Unified Theory of Spacetime, Matter, and Entropic Genesis*. [Preprint].
3. Dupke, A. (2025). Scale-Time Dynamics: From Consciousness to Cosmos. [Manuscript].
4. Bhadra, N. (2025). The Complex Quantum State of Consciousness. [Manuscript pending publication].
5. Klimo, J. (2014). The challenge of subtle energies: An irreverent perspective. Journal of Scientific Exploration, 28(1), 75-102.
6. Tiller, W. A. (1997). Science and Human Transformation: Subtle Energies, Intentionality and Consciousness. Pavior Publishing.
7. Mocombe, P. C. (2022). The Consciousness Field: A Fifth Force of Nature. International Journal of Philosophy and Social Science, 9(2), 1-15.
8. Mocombe, P. C. (2025). The Mathematics of Consciousness. American Journal of Biomedical Science & Research, 17(1).
9. Radin, D. (1997). The Conscious Universe: The Scientific Truth of Psychic Phenomena. HarperEdge.
10. Tiller, W. A. (2007). Psychoenergetic Science: A Second Copernican-Scale Revolution. Pavior Publishing.
11. Laszlo, E. (2004). Science and the Akashic Field: An Integral Theory of Everything. Inner Traditions.
12. Haramein, N., Brown, W. & Val Baker, A. (2016). The Unified Spacememory Network: from Cosmogenesis to Consciousness. NeuroQuantology, 14(4).
13. Transmaterialization Research. (2025, May 18). Unified Geometric Model. Transmaterialization.com.
14. Tononi, G. (2008). Consciousness as integrated information: a provisional manifesto. The Biological Bulletin, 215(3), 216-242.
15. Krüger, M. (2025). Helix-Light-Vortex (HLV) Theory: A Unified Geometrical Framework for Space, Matter, and Consciousness. [Preprint]. PreReview.org.
16. Sousa Junior, E. C. (2025). *Thermodynamic Holographic Entanglement Theory (T-HET V3): A Unified Theory of Spacetime, Matter, and Entropic Genesis*. [Preprint]. ResearchGate.
17. Bhadra, N. (2025, July 4). The Complex Quantum State of Consciousness: Application to TMT/ITC/EVP. Transmaterialization.com.
18. Bilimoria, E. (2021). Death as Transition: At the Door of Eternity. Journal of Consciousness Exploration & Research, 12(1), 1-15.
19. Pitkänen, M. (2020). Topological Geometrodynamics: Revised Edition. Online book.
20. Messori, C. (2012). A Cosmogonic Model of Consciousness. Journal of Consciousness Exploration & Research, 3(11), 1149-1208.
21. Transmaterialization Research. (2025). Transmaterialization Simulation Project. Transmaterialization.com.
22. Transmaterialization Research. (2025, May 25). Integration of Geometry Models to Adam Apollo’s Foundational Geometry Model. Transmaterialization.com.
23. Hoffman, D. D. (2019). The Case Against Reality: Why Evolution Hid the Truth from Our Eyes. W. W. Norton & Company.
24. Bigelow Institute for Consciousness Studies. (2021). Essay Contest: The Best Evidence for the Survival of Human Consciousness after Permanent Bodily Death.
25. Neppe, V., & Close, E. (2021). The Triadic Dimensional Vortical Paradigm: Best Evidence for Survival. Journal of Spirituality and Paranormal Studies, 40(4), 268-294.
26. Dupke, A. (2025). Scale-Time Dynamics: From Consciousness to Cosmos. [Manuscript]. SVGN.io.
27. Butlin, P., & Long, R. (2025). Consciousness in Artificial Intelligence: Insights from the Science of Consciousness. [Preprint].
28. Rouleau, N. (2022). Physical Anomalies at Death: A Review of Evidence for Information Transfer. [Unpublished manuscript].
29. Transmaterialization Research. (2025, June 28). Scale-Time Dynamics: From Consciousness to Cosmos (Andre Dupke) – Application to TMT/ITC/EVP. Transmaterialization.com.
30. Transmaterialization Research. (2025, May 31). Alexander MacRae’s ITC Experiments: The Alpha System and Modern Replication. Transmaterialization.com.
31. Miller, J. (2025, May 25). Naturalism vs. Technological Evolution: A Defense of Trans-Materialization Technology. Transmaterialization.com.

Additional Contextual References (as noted in-text):
Barrett, D. (2019). Towards a Theory of Subtle Energy. In Transmaterialization (Ed.), Introduction to Transmaterial Studies.
Haisch, B. (2014). Is the Universe a Vast, Consciousness-Created Virtual Reality Simulation? Cosmos and History, 10(1), 48-60.
Kastrup, B. (2019). The Idea of the World: A Multi-Disciplinary Argument for the Mental Nature of Reality. IFF Books.
Meijer, D. K. F. (2024). Consciousness and the Information Network: Exploring the Continuity of Mind After Death. Journal of Mind and Matter, 22(1), 85-112.