I could respond like the Digg comments I saw for this article and say 'No' and leave it at that, but that would be an uninteresting post. I read that article, and right from the outset knew it was ludicrous. It was about an author and his book about near death experiences and how they prove the afterlife. The instant thought to that is that there are many explanations for how a person could be convinced of something that isn't real. His response to this is that there are many explanations for why it doesn't make sense to accept near death experiences, and thus they are wrong because they need many reasons instead of just one. He then contradicts himself by saying that awareness of near death experience has raised drastically one sentence, and in the next saying that the possibility of the increased awareness causing an increased susceptibility to having an experience by saying that since the stories weren't copycats of the ones they read, it doesn't matter.He then makes mention of how believing in an afterlife makes him feel better treating cancer patients. As warm and fuzzy as it is that it makes him feel better, it doesn't help his case.
All in all, the article was a poor argument for an afterlife(but, im sure this blog post is almost as poor, as it is late, and im burnt out from calc homework.