Well, I would say what these studies are suggesting is that the mystical experience isn't a subjective experience per se in the sense that each individual undergoes and experiences something unique to their own personality or subconscious. Sure, your personality may influence how you interpret the mystical experience itself, but there are six notable characteristics that have been outlined in the study which have been recognized to be universal to anyone who undergoes a mystical experience. These characteristics have absolutely nothing to do with the personal history or the unconscious mind of the individual. That is what these studies have empirically shown through fMRI and through questionnaires that have been around for decades to gauge the "mystical experience." The mystical experience is often described as being transpersonal or impersonal in that you're not met with the detritus of the ego or the subconscious mind.

As your comment that consciousness is something physical, and dies with the body, that is a mainstream atheistic point-of-view. Not all physicists or neuroscientists believe that consciousness is generated by the brain. Your mainstream model of consciousness definitely sees it as produced by the brain; the same way a factory makes cars. So, if you smash up the factory, the cars stop being made. Ergo, if the person dies, the brain dies, then consciousness just blinks out, gone, finished. That's the mainstream view. However, there is another view where the brain is a transceiver or receiver of consciousness, that it is the junction box that is manifesting consciousness on the physical realm. Then, when you destroy the receiver, the signal is still there just as if you destroyed a tv set, the tv signal is still there, and you get into all kinds of possibilities from that. Perhaps you've heard of quantum mind or what's also referred to as quantum consciousness which is a group of hypotheses which propose that classical mechanics cannot explain consciousness. It posits that quantum mechanical phenomena, such as quantum entanglement and superposition, may play an important part in the brain's function and could form the basis of an explanation of consciousness. If you Wiki consciousness, the quote that stands out there is, "Nothing worth reading has been written about consciousness." So, I think if you believe you've got it figured out, then you may be fooling yourself.

There was something I wanted to add… Oh yes, another reason you may not find consciousness mysterious is because you've never had a mystical experience. I mean, this is an experience which most people find that terms such as "spiritual" or "mystical" seem the only viable words that suffice for a description. Of course, those people may have been religiously influenced prior to their mystical experience, but I will point out that in Dr. Rick Strassman's book "DMT: The Spirit Molecule," he notes that atheist volunteers that he dosed intravenously with N,N-DMT would reach for more mathematical metaphors, common descriptions would include "beyond dimensionality" or even "fourth dimensional." To my mind, calling it "Brahman" or "hyperspace" are essentially two ways of describing the same thing. You know, Johns Hopkins is currently running a trial now. You could potentially be a volunteer, if you so wished, and you can have a mystical experience for yourself. They're accepting anyone between the ages of 25 and 80-years old. Now, you might say, "No, thanks," but you see, you've precluded yourself from the very thing that could challenge your atheism. Terence McKenna used to reserve DMT for the most hardened skeptics because it only lasts about five minutes. He'd say, "Surely you've five minutes to invest in an experience that would alter your entire ontological foundation." If you aren't willing to challenge yourself to this experience, then you'll forever circumambulate the true mystery of religion, and perhaps you'll have this experience prior to the moment of death (which is another area where it's speculated to occur).

What have I said that is so ridiculous? I'm not attempting to preach anything. A similar thread was posted at "ThinkAtheist.com" with the title "The Entheogenic theory of religion" which I participated in. Some atheists there accused me of proselytizing an "LSD God." You see, that's entirely missing the point. It's not like I'm saying "mystical experiences exists, therefore God exists." That's not what I'm saying at all. What I'm saying is that the usual atheist conclusion is that "God" was a sort of God of the Gaps, it was a fanciful notion born out of the imagination to give answers to what we didn't have answers for. Perhaps some religions developed the notion of God in such a fashion, but the major religions such as Hinduism, for instance, is without a doubt referring to an altered state of consciousness which they referred to as "samadhi," but what our neuroscientists today are referring to as "mystical experience." What Perennial philosophy is arguing is that God is not some old man with a long white beard sitting on a throne in heaven, but rather a metaphor used to describe an altered state of consciousness, likewise Brahman, samadhi, satori, nirvana, moksha, Beatific vision, shekinah, etc. Carl Jung called it the "collective unconscious," because he recognized that religion seem to sprout spontaneously in various cultures throughout the world, and in various epochs even when there was no influence upon one culture to another. That was his notion, but what these scientific studies are implicating that it wasn't a "collective unconscious" but the mystical experience which is hard-wired into our species.

I don't have to convince anyone here of the mystical experience because that has already been scientifically proven. What I'm doing rather is helping people understand the implications of such a study.

Well, I didn't directly linked to them, but I have indirectly referenced them. I mentioned Dr. Rick Strassman's work with DMT, the current study happening now with psilocybin in Baltimore, MD, and a few others. Like I said, give me time, and I'll prepare the links. I've most of this stuff bookmarked. By the way, if the video somehow led you to the tobacco study, then I'm not sure how you linked to that. The video is addressing another study that had taken place, the study on tobacco addicts wasn't addressed in that particular video.

e/ Unfortunately, the links that referred to the peer-reviewed material on the Johns Hopkins University of Medicine website have been taken down, but I did find a link that mentions numerous studies that you can Google if you'd like some more information on these clinical trials:

http://entheology.com/features/scientifically-proven-religious-experiences/

The one I linked to had over thirty participants, not simply thirty participants, but why nit-pick over these trivialities? The trial involving the tobacco addicts did involve precisely 15 participants for both sessions, so I could accuse you of being vague, but like I said, why nit-pick over something so petty? Now, there has been many follow-ups and multiple clinical trials that have taken place now, and have yield similar results. Johns Hopkins are actually using higher doses this time around, and expect to see a higher rate for mystical experience in individuals. So, there's more to come.

Of course there was more than one experiment, these trials have been going on since 2006! I mean, talk about being vague. Why don't you address any real points instead of nit-picking at trivialities?