Having read the original article, I must point out that the researchers correctly recognized the possibility that those with larger brains in the mentioned areas might be attracted to meditation more than others.

I think maybe another case of journalistic overstatement of tentative results and a speculative explanation.

The problem with any study of this nature is that the conclusions aren't necessarily the only ones that follow from the observations.

The observations mentioned are just as consistent with the conclusion "only people with larger brains are driven/motivated to meditate" as with the conclusion they chose.

If alternate conclusions are just as logically valid, one can't rightfully declare any one of the possible explanations is de facto correct. More research is required that, for example, measures the growth of those parts of the brain as a result of meditation.

Even then, it is plausible to suggest that the enlargement of those brain regions is a side effect of crossing your legs for a period of time on a daily basis rather than meditation per se.

Deep waters....