Most of that post is just making up stories about why that evidence might be wrong without really investigating the evidence or by backing up stories with facts. Even if all that you said is correct, I think you have not done an adequate job at refuting any of the points on the near-death site, nor have you given cause to consider the possibility of hypergraphia in the case of the Phoenix Journals. You base your beliefs upon assumptions which are unstated, then give inadequate stories as explanations without considering all of the circumstantial evidence and the possibility of new paradigms.
I am not countering with 'evidence' I am countering with an explanation for why what you consider to be 'evidence' does not qualify as such.
Big difference.
Let me give you an example:
You show me a room full of a hundred people sitting at desks frantically tapping away on computer keyboards, writing. You say that they all claim to be 'channelling' information from time-travelling space beings. I say to you that there is no reason to believe they are not simply experiencing the neurological disorder, 'hypergraphia' as it is a recognised disorder and a condition which affects a small percentage of the population, often for a relatively short period of time. You respond by saying, "Ok, I'll accept that the majority are probably suffering from that condition but I will insist that at least one of them must be genuinely channelling information from time-travelling space beings.
Trouble is, you have no basis for asserting such a thing when there is long recorded history of recognising and understanding the medical condition, 'hypergraphia' in humans, many of whom claim to be writing some sort of 'secret knowledge' and there is absolutely no recorded history of it being found, instead, to be a case of a human being channelling information from time-travelling space beings.
Another example would be the wild claims made by Mellen-Thomas Benedict, if you read the actual full thread I linked to which breaks down in more detail where the many, many problems with his claims are, a similar position to the above is reached. We have a long and recorded history of people claiming they have experienced something 'mystical', but no objective evidence of such a thing actually occurring. He lays claim to having been lauded by medical science for miraculously being able to describe some genetic 'fix' that needed to be made and how they were all congratulating him months later when it turned out he had helped them achieve some incredible scientific leaps of progress. Conveniently, however, he pulls a 'Josh Garza' and makes sure to throw in how he had to signed various Non-disclosure agreements which ensures that neither he nor any of the scientists he said he worked with are allowed to discuss anything about his 'miraculous insight'.
The only 'evidence' you have for his claims are his claims, which is known as the fallacy of 'circular reasoning'. Therefore it is not acceptable as evidence.
Every single 'scientific' point that NDE website cites as 'proof' is grossly flawed. We've been here before and unless you are willing to strike out each one I objectively debunk, I am not going to waste my time doing so only for you to go back and cite them again because you're incapable of rational thought and unwilling to recognise that you are probably caught up in the 'sunk cost' fallacy, which is the fact you have expended so much time and energy in making this a core element of your identity and belief that you would rather maintain intellectual dishonesty in the face of critical analysis than accept the actual truth.