Experience is evidence of a particular kind
Someone describing a profound moment supplies evidence about what they report experiencing. That account deserves careful reading. It does not automatically establish what caused the experience, how common it is or whether its interpretation applies to another person. Those are additional research questions.
In their 2015 methodological paper, Richard Davidson and Alfred Kaszniak distinguish first-person reports from observations by others and measurements made by researchers. They also separate a temporary state during practice from a lasting trait and from the procedure participants are instructed to follow. Collapsing those categories makes a result sound broader than its design allows.
Sources: s1
A comparison needs a credible alternative
The same paper discusses self-selection when long-term practitioners are compared with novices. Differences between the groups need not all have arisen from practice. Expectations, prior characteristics and the comparison condition deserve attention. An impressive measurement does not remove those design questions.
NCCIH's public overview notes that meditation covers varied practices and that much research has been preliminary or difficult to interpret. It also warns that few studies have examined possible harmful effects. These cautions argue for specifying the practice and outcome, rather than treating meditation as one uniform exposure.
A fair reading rule
When reading a claim, identify the experience described, the measure used, the comparison and the time of measurement. Then state only the conclusion those observations support. This editorial rule leaves room for spiritual interpretation while keeping that interpretation distinct from an empirical finding. Neither a scan nor a questionnaire can settle every philosophical question a person brings to it.