Obviously the implications are huge, I have often pondered the implications of it. Of course their are still materialists who say the evidence can be explained away by natural explanations. For those you believe that, I think they should consider doing some research on experts in afterlife research. Then conclude for or against survival. One of the most often problems materialists have is, they say that they have researched the evidence for survival. But the fact is when you start talking to them, you soon find out that they haven't bother to research the evidence.
Could survival after death not be true?. Of course, that is certainly is something worth considering. What we deal with in science anyways is probability not facts. So with that I would conclude the probability is far greater of survival being true, then not true.
Now the common objection to survival with the transmission theory, is it falsifible? Which I don't think is true, one way to falsify it is to show that our brain isn't a receiver of consciousness. How would we show that?. Well one is through further investigation. We shouldn't rule out transmission theory because it is complicated, or write it off as an apriori.
Just because the production theory is simple doesn't mean it is more probabilble then the transmission theory. We must look at all the facts. Some evidence that materialists use to support their case which are open to different interpretations. For example, Benjamin Libet's finding that brain activity precedes a conscious decision, which is routinely presented by sceptics, in their dull way, as 'another nail in the coffin for dualism' (Blackmore, Dying to Live, p. 237), and which of course is open to contrary interpretations, as Libet himself pointed out. Wilder Penfield's experimental findings on the neurological basis of memory is also used by sceptics in an anti-dualist sense which Penfield himself did not endorse.