There are reasons to be extremely skeptical about some of their claims, but, some of it is very interesting and credible.

So I suspect both of the factors are at the play here as well.

It's rentable at the usual places. I might check it out.

Death for medical purposes is really the boundary when function is not at all expected to return. It's not when metabolic processes stop. It can vary with treatment (handling?).

For incorruptibility, (as others have mentioned) diet could be a factor, especially for immunogenic foods. Lack of stress is another. Stress hormones have wide-ranging impacts and are key to sleep, wherein detoxification, esp. reduction of reactive oxygen species (ROS) by melatonin. A monk at peace for months or years before death could have a vastly altered hormonal and metabolic landscape.

Therapeutic hypothermia is cooling the body after near-death trauma from heart attacks and drowning. In the last ~15 years, it has been instrumental in increasing survival, even for people e.g., under water for many minutes. The problem is reperfusion injury: after a bout of anoxic cellular respiration, there's a large build-up of ROS; re-introducing full metabolism quickly results in these molecules reacting with others, impeding metabolic processes and destroying some cellular structure. So cooling and only slowly reheating the body allows the ROS to be scavenged instead, and people survive as a result.

If there's validity to incorruptibility in this context, my bet would be on some combination of coolness and processes that reduce ROS, coupled with a very low population of ROS from a stress-free history before death.

But a mechanism of incorruptibility doesn't address the other phenomenon of responsiveness, holding collapse off until some signal.

In my (limited) experience with people after stroke, long after any cognitive abilities are gone, the person maintains reactivity to the environment - touch, heat, light, sound, and (yes) voices. This reflects more autonomic processes. The cerebellum maintains body awareness and position with input from the midbrain, and spinal nerves for muscle groups can operate on their own to hold position and react. (Indeed, one of the signs of the absence of CNS suppression is painful, relentless muscle spasms.) So I can imagine nerves and muscles holding anoxic positions, and even some reduced nerve signaling from the cerebellum using ion reserves. The holding would have to be perfect, and the signal to release would be a one-time thing. This would not work repeatedly or for any signal to do something.

My overall takeaway is that we don't realize the extent to which we are a product of our bodies.

The conflict between subjective and objective phenomena is alleviated simply by recognizing subjective experience as objective phenomena. Not as necessarily accurate interpretations of reality, but also as not devoid of an objective connection to reality.

History is full of psychological effects thought to be purely subjective for which we now have an objective understanding much more interesting than “those experiences are just made up”.

The brain processes information along many pathways and in complex ways. This creates all kinds of interesting effects of perception, many not experienced by everyone.

A really good example is people who “see vibrations and colorful auras”. We now know there is a large class of effects given the umbrella name of “synesthesia”. In these cases, pre-awareness or sub-awareness information is combined in the brain, in a way not common to most people, and encoded into a directly perceived form.

For the person with one of these effects, the perception is very real.

But the effect is often more interesting than a different sensory/conscious encoding of reality.

For instance, many people, due to early childhood trauma or divergent development, innately process social information very early in their perception pathways. They pick up on micro-gestures, perceived intentions, hints of people’s characters in a pre-conscious way that they experience as direct perception.

Often this came about due to basic psychological function being tuned for an uncommon level of social negotiation demands and social threat preparedness, from birth.

I am very close with a “highly sensitive person” (psychological technical term) who also has color-social synesthesia.

She absolutely “sees” auras and vibrations around people and has since her earliest memory. This is as real to her as the emotional responses most of us have mixed into our perceptions of music.

She can’t unsee these effects any more than most people could go-music-affect blind at will. But she spent her childhood being bullied for her “strange”, “weird”, “stupid”, processing and reactions, to a level and form of information people around her couldn’t see.

But her differences are not just a curiosity, they are very adaptive for her. She sees a visual representation of information generated by her hyper alert pre-conscious social mind directly. Essentially she has an unusually effective social co-processor/pre-processor most of us do not have.

I have been simply amazed on too many occasions to count, at how quickly she picks up on people’s intentions, character traits, or current situational psychology. Such as stress about something unrelated to the moment, and any behavior I could see.

She is not always right in interpretation. And the fact that to her, she perceives many of these subtleties encoded as something clearly seen can make it hard for her to accept a different interpretation without some good alternate evidence.

But generally speaking she is a wonder at low latency high bandwidth personal interpretation.

I feel absolutely blind compared to her, even in situations where I am paying close attention to behavior and cues.

Since I respected her experiences from the time we first met (even though I initially assumed there was a lot of “pure” subjectivity and wishful thinking going on), and brought up the scientific view of understanding phenomena as complementary to perception, not anti-mystical, we got along well. We routinely talk about many things back and forth in mystical vs. scientific forms, with the assumption there is only temporary, never inherent, inherent conflict.

Which is really fun. Her mystical mind and her perception of the world is beautiful and functional in ways I would never have imagined without our rapport.

I think scientists make a big mistake when they approach mystical views from a science competitive stance. Especially perceptions that are common to many. There is likely it or only a scientific explanation, for those subjective perceptions, but interesting benefits associated with the value that people with these perceptions place on them.

Recognizing when there is value makes a dual but consistent mystical/scientific view more accurate and more palatable to people who otherwise have seen science practiced as a selective reality ideology.

The internal mind, relative to our physical processing machinery, is a first class world, for exploration, discovery, and surprising explanations. That it can operate by very different rules from non-psychological artifacts just makes it more important to take seriously as a first class realm.

Another good one is Niroda Samapatti (cessation) where advanced meditators can momentarily cease awareness https://awakeningdharma.org/havard-study-on-nirodha-samapatt...