A more central point of criticism was related to the control group in Nelson and colleagues’ study which consisted mainly of medical personnel, a likely selection bias (Long & Holden, 2007). We countered this in our survey with a crowdsourced approach in which the control group originated from the same population as the NDE group (i.e. unprimed lay people) (Kondziella, Dreier & Olsen, 2019). Our survey was announced under the headline “Survey on Near-Death Experiences and (Related Experiences)”, but we did not provide further information about the content of the study. Participants were informed that their monetary reward was fixed, regardless of whether they would report having had an NDE or not. Then, we asked the participants to complete a questionnaire comprising demographic information, followed by the questions about REM intrusion. Subsequently, participants were asked if they ever had experienced an NDE. If not, the survey ended there; if yes, participants were asked in detail about this experience and information about all 16 GNDES items was collected (Kondziella, Dreier & Olsen, 2019). In this way, we think that we were able to dispel the previous criticism regarding the control group. Long and Holden also explained how the questionnaire for REM intrusion could be misinterpreted by people with NDE, possibly leading to an overestimation of the association between REM intrusion and NDE (Long & JM, 2007). It is indeed difficult to address this problem with a questionnaire containing only closed questions. Therefore, we also gave our participants the opportunity to describe their experiences in their own words (Kondziella, Dreier & Olsen, 2019).