The basis for this entire presumption is that there is an intrinsically existent being who comes into being (is born) and ceases being (dies). But Buddhist reasoning of what you are thus referring to as "afterlife" rejects this premise. Instead, rebirth is founded on the principle that no such intrinsically existent being actually exists. Thus, while these 'near death' and 'seeing the white light' experiences, etc. may be described by those who experience them as evidence, and even though such a description is found in what is clumsily referred to as the "Tibetan book Of The Dead", to understand it in buddhist terms, one has to appreciate the context.
This reminds me of a story that can be used to exemplify the shift in outlook.
The day after Halloween, two jack-o-lanterns are discussing what they may be reborn as in their next life. One had been carved with an angry face, the other has always had a foolish expression, and they wondered what "karmic' effect this would have.
From their point of view, this is who they thought they were.
But at that very same time, the Sun, rain and soil are also having a discussion.
The soil says, "it sure is fun manifesting as pumpkins". and the rain says, "what do you want to become next?"
...which of course makes sense here. From their point of view, the pumpkins were not intrinsically existent beings at all, but merely an expression of their own qualities.
Likewise, Buddhism regards the coming together of both physical and mental events which we experience as a "self" as result of causes.
And as an analogy, what we are physically is in fact a brief gathering of elements that were already on this planet millions of years before we were, as we like to say, 'born". But, as with the pumpkins in this story, it is because of our limited point of view that we regard our "selves" as intrinsically existent.
We experience being born and dying as something other than what they actually are, because naturally, we impute a "self' based on that experience. We say "I was born' and "I will die" based on the experience of an "I" which, when analyzed, cannot be found to actually arise independently.
In other words, since there is no intrinsic "me", then no intrinsic "me" is actually born or dies. Only the experience of "me" which is the basis of suffering, arises and ceases, along with physical conditions. When one realizes awakened mind, even though the body dies, there is no 'me' that dies or is reborn. Such is the example of a Buddha. Until then, mind, or awareness, arises continually with conditions. This is samsara.
So, what you are really only offering evidence of, is that no afterlife can be proven when approached from the point of view that an intrinsically existent self exists. And in that assertion, Buddhist theory does not disagree with you.
Profile Picture: "The Foaming Monk"
The Chinese characters are Fo (buddha) and Ming (bright). The image is of a student of Buddhism, who, imagining himself to be a monk, and not understanding the true meaning of the words takes the sound of the words literally. Likewise, People on web forums sometime seem to be foaming at the mouth. Original painting by P.Volker /used by permission.