An interesting idea, but where could this research lead? Here's a few possibilities:

The abstract to the paper describes the activation pattern, and it's pretty systemic:

This state was associated with significant loci of activation in the right medial orbitofrontal cortex, right middle temporal cortex, right inferior and superior parietal lobules, right caudate, left medial prefrontal cortex, left anterior cingulate cortex, left inferior parietal lobule, left insula, left caudate, and left brainstem. Other loci of activation were seen in the extra-striate visual cortex.

Now, one should hasten to add that this is far from conclusive: it may in fact be the case that Carmelite nuns (or these particular) Carmelites, are worshiping the wrong god and as a result were not having 'genuine' religious experiences to begin with. Certainly this would be a reasonable assumption for any partisan of a non-Christian religion to make.

It gets more interesting. From here, further studies open up three possibilities:

1. Religious mystics of other faiths have distinctly different activation patterns. Such a finding could throw gasoline on the fire of religious intolerance because it would clearly suggest that the similarities between religions (idea of One god, moral precepts etc.) are superficial and that the gulf between them can't be bridged. More exactly, it would lend credence to the idea that it's the highly specific symbolic and conceptual details of doctrines that matter--an idea that in the past has been a leading driver of pogroms and religious wars. This would be a disastrous finding; imagine fanatics demanding that their followers submit to a brainscan while praying, and subsequently 're-educating' or executing those whose scans fail to show the right experience.
2. Religious mystics of other faiths have exactly the same activation pattern. This would be the opposite bombshell: neurological evidence that the superficial details of different religions don't matter--that they all end up in the same place. This would greatly further the cause of religious liberalism.

   It can be said in this case that religion is like music in the way it lights up dozens of different brain areas, and is hence a holistic experience. In that sense, it's probably better that there is no one 'god spot;' just as you can't stimulate one spot in the brain and cause someone to have a musical experience (you can make somebody hear music that's not there, but that's not the same thing) nor can you simply 'switch on' enlightenment. I can hear priests and theologians the world over heaving a sigh of relief over this one.

3. Everybody's activation pattern is different, even within religions. This would tend to suggest that religious experience doesn't really exist at all--it's just a case of people attaching one label to dozens of different things, perhaps experiences that are similar only in being powerful, transformative, and unique. This result would say that there is no experience of God to be had, only various degrees of sucking-up to religious authority. It would be a kidney-blow to every faith and definitely another round in the Copernican diminution of religion in general.

So which will it be? I'm leaning toward #2, but any one of the three would be interesting. The main point is that while scientists may say that their findings do nothing to validate or invalidate faith as such, they're... well... lying. Or idiots. Studies of this sort will come freighted with implications whether the scientists want them to or not. Some of those implications could be world-changing, or dire. But they're not likely to be neutral.

<  |  >