I didn't read his book myself - I had him read it to me, and while it wasn't the best written book I've ever heard, his experiences were real, and his evaluation of the science from a physical perspective was impeccable. The fact that he was an experienced brain surgeon before this occurred only makes his testimony that much more interesting. He's not some maverick out on the fringes of science saying things about his observations of other people.
About that... http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/this-must-be-heaven This is not only skepticism about the unfounded claims and assumptions, but engages expert testimony as well. It's a good read.
I don't think his book tries to prove that consciousness is independent of the brain, not intentionally anyway. It only suggests it as a possibility. His vision, his experience was specific to him, and in just the way our day to day lives are specific to us, and one set of circumstances can be perceieved differenltly by different people, so would this experience be unique to him. The details aren't as important as the experience itself and more importantly, how it made him feel. By revealing the fact that he had it at all, unlike a normal joe with no qualifications saying the same thing, he has academic standing and respect in an area that few do. It gives him far more rational insight, in the same way that a pilot seeing a UFO has more credibility than a street cleaner, in people's eyes. The way he felt, the things he saw and experienced, and the realisations he gained from them may not be universal truths, nor do they have to be. Not in themselves. But the structure, the organizing principle, the consciousness of the experience and what took place with whom and when, this is what matters. The fact that it can happen at all reveals something worth looking at. Conclude nothing from it, which is not easy to do, not if you're used to doing so. We all want to make sense of our experiences, and our little minds are almost unable to handle such things, which is why even though many people have had experiences like this, no two are the same, and even taking into account those who have them but never tell anyone, far more people have not come even close to such things. Debunking won't help, doesn't help, nor will being in a state of closed mind. Demanding proof before belief makes sense, but there's nothing to believe here, other than he experienced something very real to him, that was just for him, that made a difference in his life in a way that he feels compelled to share. Many do so after profound experiences. I have. Sam Harris quotes this as an example of his obvious religious tendancies. Yet I see it more as revealing a balanced perspective. Open, yet critical. Aware that there are things he simply isn't certain can be, while preferring the rational scientific mind approach. This doesn't reveal him ready to create a religious experience, this makes him more likely to reject it. Same Harris bases his opinion on an hour-long interview he found online. He even says he hasn't read his book but assumes there'll be nothing in there that would change anything. Sounds like he's decided something then, because without ALL his testimony how could you come to any proper conclusion? Yet, just a moment ago, SH claims to be open minded (really). Then when other skeptics get involved, they base what they think on the same interview and other skeptics thoughts and side with or lean towards, the opinion they feel most comfortable with. None of which is based on their own interview with Dr. Alexander. None of which is even based on the words he took many hours to write down. I often feel that unless I say everything, saying something leaves out far more that doesn't get said. As it's not possible to say everything, I often choose to say nothing and accept that. But on the occasion when i feel I've said everything I needed to, there is no question of the difference in how i feel, and the difference in how what I say gets perceived. I can't say what others will make of his book. I haven't 'read' it, but I have listened to the audio version with him speaking his own words. I also must confess that I never finished it, but I listened to most of it. The voice reveals more than any written word can because unlike the written word which is read in your own voice, the actual voice is heard in theirs. That is what reveals authenticity, and listening to someone speak about something they went through when there is time and space and the mind is not judging, allows for the truth of what's being said to be heard if it's there. As I said, the thing itself is not revealing a universal truth, not in the sense that we must now prepare for flowers and heavenly music as we waft slowly upwards as our wings flap us to heaven, that is the metaphor that his mind used to create the details of the experience. The experience was real. Reality is experience.
The way he was originally presented (and the way it appeared he was being presented here) was that his experience was authoritative evidence of the afterlife. He's a neurosurgeon, after all! Appeal to authority! Except a neurosurgeon is only an authority on how to cut the brain. Harris has a PhD in cognitive neuroscience and consulted experts in the field about the Newsweek article. The bit you quoted reveals preconceptions that likely would form the basis for a confirmation bias. If you already believe in heaven, and you know you're dying, when the moment finally arrives and seems to pass a person might fall back on these preconceptions because the perception that you're dead and yet still conscious seems to fit with them. Obviously, he was not dead. His description from the article and from interviews appears to have been taken and repeated here. I posted a critical article written by someone who knows what he's talking about far better than the original author, who holds his position as a surgeon as if it gives his account some greater-than-normal authority. The critique explains serious problems with the account. I don't much care about the afterlife concept, except to think that it's probably the single worst idea that humanity has generated. Obviously, I doubt it exists but more importantly I think I have to doubt it because I don't want to plan for it and miss out on the one chance I know I have. But if we're going to hold up these accounts of the afterlife, we owe it to ourselves to hold up their critiques as well. Some hospitals are conducting experiments using real-world props for measurement. Someone who passed and returned with an accurate description would mean a lot more to me than someone who passed and came back with a DMT trip.
Like I said , the nuts and bolts of it aren't the important thing. The important thing is that he experienced something outside HIS normal mode of experience and he feels changed by it. Fair enough. You don't have to doubt or not doubt, as it either is or isn't. You only have to live now - but then you already know that. It's not the experiences people have that cause issue I don't think, it's the conclusions they draw from them. It's easy to have an experience (those who do) that one might call 'mystical' and conclude something from it. We have a need to define. label, understand, what things are - it is our nature. It's far more interesting to consider the process and mechanism by which these things occur, and wonder in awe at what life truly is, regardless of what beliefs or ideas can be imagined along the way. In the same way that some take the christian bible as a literal document, while others see it far more metaphorically, so I agree that anyone coming from or being brought up with, some religious tradition, is far more likely to create and accept the experience if it contains certain things. But that in itself doesn't make the experience unreal, only coming in a form that makes sense to him. At the end of the day (I hate that expression) only he knows how real the experience really was. There will be nothing he can say to anyone at anytime that will adequately pass across what he saw. It was just for him. Should he have kept quiet about it? Perhaps. Many do. He chose not to, so of course he comes under scrutiny. By the way, there are many accounts of people having access to information, hearing what people say in other rooms, seeing objects from different perspectives, that couldn't have been experienced in any known way unless they were truly outside their body.