Non-conceptual Religious Experience?

I was getting into a conversation the other day about religious experience, and in particular about whether anyone could have a non-conceptual, direct experience of the Trinity (or, if you prefer, God in general, Brahman, Thusness, etc.). I held that it is always an experiencing-as, an experience that also has an interpretation (not that the experience and the interpretation are two different realities), and the response I got back was that this was a result of a Western split between reason and faith/theology/the non-rational, and doesn't come up elsewhere.

But this doesn't seem to work. Just because another group believes in square circles doesn't mean that they exist, and I am holding that a non-conceptual experience that nevertheless legitimates a particular view is similarly nonsensical. If the experience itself is non-conceptual, it does not provide intrinsic evidence for anything articulable. If it could, it would have to already have some conceptual structure to it.

So does it provide any evidence at all? It seems that it could provide extrinsic evidence, by which I mean this: I join up with a group, the group tells me that I will attain a certain experience by following certain steps, and lo-and-behold I have that experience. Considering that the group has been right about this, I have some prima facie evidence for accepting their interpretation of the experience. The experience itself may be non-conceptual, and so there would still be nothing within the experience to give evidence in itself, but there could still some reality that actually occurred during the experience which is articulable about which the group is right.

So my experience of God may itself be non-conceptual, the experience itself not giving me grounds for saying that it is of God as opposed to of a tree, but it could still be that I had actually experienced God rather than a tree and I would now have some extrinsic evidence of this because of the methods of practice and interpretation of the group at hand.

However, different groups have their own non-conceptual experiences, and offer different interpretations. An interpretation of the experience as one of the Triniarian life is not the same as a recognition of divine Tawhiid (unity/unification) or of ultimate Shunyata (emptiness). The experience doesn't validate the group; the group simply helps to give an interpretation to the experience (although, this is not something separate from the experience and is part of the prerequisites for experiencing it at all).

So, to what extent could religious experience actually give evidence that a given religious group is right? It appears that the only thing that it can do is to suggest that a group with its traditions, etc. has a sort of efficacy. It says absolutely nothing about whether that group is right compared to other groups. Experience can tell us that a given path is worthwhile, but says nothing about whether there are other paths. In fact, if we take other people's experiences seriously and not be ad hoc about our own, religious experience would seem to entail the positive conclusion that there are multiple worthwhile paths.