>>11841025Why could it? What possible mechanism of action could there be?
>>11841378 sums it up.
The default assumption is that it's overwhelmingly likely that it doesn't and can't ever. You'd need some very strong evidence to the contrary.
Otherwise, the only thing is basically to hope that everything we know is an illusion and we're in some sort of reality managed by other conscious beings - though even if that is the case, it's extremely likely death still results in the permanent destruction of one's consciousness/self/soul/whatever. It's just a necessary condition, even if it's insufficient.
The default assumption there is that the conscious beings set up the initial conditions for the universe and then let everything play out naturally, with no interference or influence; it might even be set up in a way, perhaps intentionally, that makes it extremely hard or possible for them to influence it in any way. If there were a conscious creator, the most likely explanation for the universe is that it's just a petri dish.
I think this is kind of an interesting thing to think about, since I rarely see it discussed. Hypothetically assume that one or more conscious beings are responsible for the creation of our universe to at least some degree - given this, what are the odds that consciousness after death is possible? I'd put it at like 0.01%, which is still extremely high compared to the odds if you assume the evolution developed purely naturally and without any consciousness or will/intention.
