Adding the word "neuroscience" to an article, or a position, does not necessarily lend to its validity. I have seen so many articles which try to give the appearance of being scientific, merely by throwing in that word, without any indication of how what may (or may not) have been measured using brain-imaging technology leads to the author’s particular conclusion or inference. Much of the time, I suspect the author uses the word, “neuroscience,” without any particular training in that field itself, and sometimes without anything more than an anecdote or allusion to tie their ideas to that particular science. Moreover, there is substantial critique within the field of neuroscience itself, in which some neuroscientists are calling out other neuroscientists for vast overreach in how the science, in its current state of development, is being utilized.
Even being an actual neuroscientist oneself does not guarantee to the holder of that credential the status of privileged access to truth. Neuroscientists can have experiences that they think confirm the reality of near-death experiences, or that deter them from belief in near-death experiences, or have experiences that border on the mystical, or don't. They can then describe these experiences in ways that reference scientific ideas. In some cases, their reasoning does indeed reflect the scientific rigor of the discipline in which they are trained (though by no means always). As human beings, though, their experiences can be just as much all over the map as anyone else’s can. The fact that opposing perspectives can each claim the evidence of neuroscience towards their proof demonstrates only that interpretation of neuroscientific evidence is not yet at a stage of development that allows it to settle many of our profound and perennial human questions.