Rob, excellent initial question, and excellent follow up to clarify that "religious experience" was an attempt to describe an indescribable experience you had, and wonder if others have had. If one doesn't feel the words work, but others might to be responsive to his question, please try to be understanding of the difficulties inherent in honest introspection of wordless feelings.
As a Bright, a person with a worldview free of supernatural elements, I do not presume that any supernatural qualities or causes influenced me, occurred, or resulted from my donation. That doesn't mean I didn't hope for it, especially for support during challenging emotional times on my path to surgery. That doesn't mean I don't respect the honest interpretations of Supers, persons with worldviews that include supernatural elements, who say that they found grace, in some form. I make no claim of such, though it was deeply transformative for me.
I found donation a period of time, and ultimately a moment, of profound self discovery. I have been repeatedly surprised in the more than eight years since at how profound and wide ranging are the impacts of my journey on myself and others. It was an unanticipated sharp turn in my life path as I had assumed it would progress, and the twists and turns I can identify as occurring solely because of it keep coming.
I want to be clear about language, and usage, and their impact on behavior and policy. Over the course of the last three years as I sat in on the OPTN/UNOS Board and KidneyCom meetings, I tried to encourage clear language. Just as deceased donor family members have promoted "deceased donor" as preferable to "cadaveric donor," we have succeeded in getting attention and respect for "non-directed donor" and "directed donor." Why should "altruistic" only be afforded to the motivations of non-directed donors? While some may feel there are reciprocal altruistic reasons for their donations, whether directed or not, and while some engage in more commodified exchanges, willingly or less so, these are not required.
We give our gifts because we are able to and choose to respond in this way to an awareness of another's need. No more is needed. The need exists, and has for all human existence. Technology means a response to the need is possible. The available response requires sacrifice by another, regardless of whether appropriately deceased, living, coerced, or compensated. We choose to give a gift. Just as with my 43 gallons of blood donated, and tens of thousands of donations collected at blood drives I've organized, I get it, I understand these people, these are my people. The people who respond, who act as needed once they know of a need. We are in a tiny minority, but multibillion dollar industries and the continued existences of hundreds of thousands, even millions of people depend on us continuing to make these choices.
Did I have a "religious experience" donating a kidney? Do I have one at every one, at any one, of my more than 300 blood donations? Do I have one at my blood drives? Did I have one at national transplantation policy meetings? When I read or post to LDO? I can't say. I don't think so. But my understanding of the phrase suggests all these things could be labeled so, if I chose to. It's your call, as it always is and has been.