while I'd go with Metzinger and maybe Dennet and Dawkins at a push the references above in no way go towards proving what you assert- they simply show that
1. some intelligent people can have incredibly stupid ideas and use the word 'suggest' too much with too little evidence
2. you love anecdotal evidence
3. the author of the article loves connecting dots
4. you equate 'science' with 'published in a new-age leaning journal'
5. the author of that article loves to cherry pick
6. you think neurotheology is a real science
while there have for millennia been debates about what conciousness is etc etc there is as yet no
scientific evidence to show - well- anything other than a few neurons fire off when things are said / smelled / thought etc etc
I'm interested in whether you ever read the other (real) side of the 'debate'
edited to add: just as an adjunct- I teach mindfulness to my patients, I use it in therapy, I use it myself- all of it without any of the 'trappings' of 'zen'- so why include the 'zen' or Buddhism bit? why not just have the approach and the practices without all that crap? If you feel you need a 'structure' then why not just admit it and stop kidding yourself?