Interestingly there is only one law in Physics that has stood the test of time and is regarded as being fundamentally undisputable.
That is the second law of thermodynamics:
“Entropy or randomness increases over time in a closed system.”
…reformulated as:
“Death”
…In other words the only thing we know is that we’re going to die.
However, the first law says that energy is conserved, which can suggest that there is an afterlife.
The onion never fails. 
The energy you speak of is either released as heat when decomposed the body after death, and/or is stored in non-organic molecules. Sorry to be so heartless. We are mortal. Life is temporary. And all the more precious for it.
Not at all. What you call life is just the explicit order of our consciousness. The field of consciousness is eternal. When nothing exist it just means that nothing is experienced. What you call life is temporary, but you will never experience death; just changes. This is the reality I’m afraid 
Johan
when we dies, our consciousness is diffused through those people who love us. The energy is released in their tears. For example, when a young person, full of energy, dies, the suffering is greater due to the energy released in the psyche of friends and relatives.
Freud was greatly influenced by theories of energy conservation in Physics. Thus his notion of psychic energy.
Everything is possible.
Do consciousness cease to exist in your view when we stop ‘experiencing’, Johan? Can you clarify what you mean by the ‘field of consciousness’?
D, I’m not entirely sure how to interpret what you are saying. How certain are you? What evidence do you have to support your view on this most fundamental of questions?
T.S. Eliot ‘The Hollow Men’ -“… This is how the world ends, This is how the world ends, This is how the world ends, Not with a bang but a whimper.”
I think you are onto something X but your formulation is a bit sloppy. The remaining energy, the bit which cannot be defined away into particles, leaves a question mark in the same position as the question mark of life. The trouble is how to explain a connection when we can only use the language of science, with its implicit acceptance of materialism, to describe it. One needs to experience a change in consciousness in order to understand what a change in consciousness actually is. Sorry, this is sloppy too. Oh, how I wish I understood these ultimate problems!
could it be that the universe is really about the stars, we human beings are merely insignificant molecular conglomerates who’s sole purpose it is to create carbon dioxide(or whatever it is we exhale)? why must there be something when we die? when a tree dies, do we really think it goes on and continues its life remembering all the windstorms it persevered through and the bushes it lived next to?
Why not prove the earth is made of marshmallow? it has the same intrigue.