Great question! Thanks.
Short answer: There is no significance unless those newcomers have deep devotional sanskars of Hinduism. That is why, those stories do not have any meaning for a Westerner BK, in general.
As mentioned before, we cannot take the lines of a Sakar Murli at “face value,” meaning literal interpretation of what Baba said at one particular point in time. Even, the Avyakt Murlis, should be looked at in the same way. Why? Because in both Murlis, Baba treat us like “little children.” 🙂 Thereby, His way of talking is geared towards little children… 🙂 and we need to see beyond that type of language, that is to have a “broad intellect.”
I can understand that, because only little children are still confronting illusions (maya,) just like we are, even though we have this powerful gyan. We are little children with grown up “intellectual” minds which get us in trouble many times…
Therefore, as mentioned before; for all practical purposes those 3 deities are part of the Hindu background and they have a particular meaning which is not needed in “pure” Gyan. Those “subtle deities” are just the explanation of the 3 “acts of God” in devotion, (creation, sustenance, destruction) therefore, that is the reason why Baba says that “Shankar and Vishnu are part of HIS creation,” even though we know that God does not create anything, nothing at all at anytime.
However, those lines had a meaning for those souls in the 1950’s who had a devotional heart for all deities, gods and goddesses that we could imagine. By acknowledging their deities rather than telling them: “look they do not exist, get over it.” we allow them to listen to us so they can experience something rather than provoke them.
In my experience, knowledge is not interpreted. It is to be experienced. When we lack the experience, especially when listening an avyakt murli, it will sound nice; but we will not understand anything, for the meaning can only be grasped once we have experienced what Baba is explaining. That is why gyan without experience is just “beautiful talk which touches the ears but never the heart.”