Key phrase in the WP article - "New $10 million research centre" - code for "now we've gotta justify our existence".

Neuroplasticity is not new - it's been widely recognised for over a decade - yes it's very interesting and says a lot more about how humans actually are, than  did previous mind/brain models.

The particular study allows only very limited conclusions because of its inadequate controls. There is no way to exclude the possibility that individuals who are drawn to long processes of meditation are not influenced to do so because of the very particular nature of their minds/brains, in much the same way that a successful tennis player will owe part of their success to physique, co-ordination skills and particular mental determination. 'Successful' meditators may born, not nurtured - the only way to exclude that possibility is a decades long mass screening process with both physical and cultural control groups.

On top of that I'd add the need for continued scepticism about definitive conclusions from any current form of brain activity imaging, which even where the data is secure from statistical overworking, may only be a poor representation of what is actually going on within the brain.

And even with all the above reservations put to one side - the fact that mediational practices alter the individual mind/brain doesn't render the 'aleration' beneficial - all sorts of things may change the mind/brain - frequently with very harmful or distressing outcomes. As Margaret Singer put it - "meditation may not always be good for you".