Oooh, you got me. Yes, the study is limited in scope, and thus not applicable to make universal statements about all religious people and atheists everywhere. Perhaps you are confusing the article ABOUT the study, which is certainly slanted and inflammatory, with the study itself, which I highly doubt makes any such claims.
We won't know what the study actually said until someone with a subscription to the journal it was published in decides to post it here. The closest I could get to it was a UC Berkeley press release on it - which, by the way, was FAR less rabid and acusatory than the article above. In fact, it was remarkably even-handed and contained exculpatory information about possible reasons for the observed behavior of the "very religious."
But the presence or absence of "universal statements" is the least of my problems with this study.
First of all, we have no clue how the study defines "highly religious" and "less religious." Nor do we find any information on the ratio of atheists and agnostics to the "less religious" used in the study.
More to the point, are not the "less religious" still religious? Why does the study conflate the religious with the unreligious?
And then there is the problem inherent in doing lab experiments with people. The very fact that they are aware that they are involved in an experiment and are being observed has unintended effects on the outcomes. The highly respected economist John List actually exposed the problems inherent in such lab experiments by behavioral economists.
Bottom line, this report leaves much to be desired and is far from proof of anything.
But then the actual authors of the report (unlike the victory-dancing author of the story above) would very likely say the same thing.
On a personal level, even though I'm an agnostic, I have donated to both religious and secular charities quite often, though not as much recently given my current economic situation.