From the How Stuff Works article: The experiences of people whose out-of-body adventures allow them to see and hear events that their unconscious body shouldn't be able to perceive are more difficult to explain. However, it is plausible that unconscious people can still register sensory cues and prior knowledge and incorporate them into their NDE. Whether this is more plausible than the subject's soul floating out of their body is a matter of personal opinion.
I would offer that everything is a matter of personal opinion, it's just that science seeks to label things as something other than that - a 'truth', a 'professional opinion' that somehow trumps the personal opinion of one who has had an experience that doesn't fit in their box of understanding. If they don't have a box of understanding then the experience cannot be what the experiencer believes and 'knows' it to be - because 'science' says so. The parts that 'don't fit' get distorted or diminished or reasoned away in a way that doesn't fit the experiencer's box of understanding either.
Whereas for the experiencer, their experiences just ARE.
The thing with 'science' (for me) is that at times it seems to seek to quantify and qualify without this variable of personal opinion/experience, and if it does bring this variable into play, then it seems to discount the things around it because of the variable.
In 1982 I had what I 'know' to be an NDE, and it has now been validated in the way science asks by scale and tick boxes and has hit that score of 'if this (NDE) is possible, this was a real one - but at the time had no idea even of the notion, it was just something I experienced. (Albeit it had lasting implications for me and for others around me).
When I tried to explain it to 'professionals' - through their personal opinions and experiences, they labelled me with professional opinions that didn't fit my experience.
Other (medical) professionals urged me to explore 'what happened' because as in the above quote I came back with knowledge and understanding of things that I could not have possibly had unless the experience was as I experienced - even if in my body (which I wasn't), even if I was on mind altering drugs (which I wasn't).
While still unable to move or open my eyes on an operating table that had been moved from one place to another and I'd 'found my body' whilst outside it, I was talking about 'medical' things even they weren't aware of at the time, in a manner of 'knowing' because in the light all things are known. Not only of things that had happened in places where my body wasn't, but in the body of another human being. Only on testing 'medically' did they come to the same knowledge I already had, and that I couldn't have had in the circumstances.
I also had knowledge of their hearts and fears and all of our connections and tried to apply the principles I learned in the light, but with others who had no notion of the 'light'.
Processing of anything is personal, with filters - science can accept that pain exists but they can't tell you a person's experience of that pain.
Being told you didn't experience your experience is frustrating.
But, for the experiencer, they have had the experience and moved on from there, while 'science' is still debating whether such an experience is even possible.
I wish I had a common and understandable analogy to explain it. Maybe like being told something doesn't hurt because ... because that someone else has never experienced that pain (?)
Or, a child not thinking there could possibly be any joy in 'kissing a girl/boy'.. until one day they do.
Like going to a mechanic shop for a particular part and them giving you another part and saying: 'This is it', and you saying: "No, that's not it", and them saying "Well, it must be it, because it's all we've got."
It's not 'it'. So far, for me the only explanation is that the experience I experienced was an experience that I experienced. And, that some other people have experienced something akin to my experience and feel the same way as I do about it being real, even if science disagrees.
There are a few scientists who accept that and have moved their studies into exploring further aspects of it. While some others are still sitting back trying to explain it through their box of understanding.
It's a bit like the progresses we've made in antibiotics because we accepted that a fungus could kill a bacteria - and some others saying .. well we're not sure how or if it really kills a bacteria so it probably doesn't.
Sorry for my rambling, all I should say is in my opinion, from my experience the explanations in that article is not "How stuff works" in my experience.