Let's hope not. 

To me Communion is a symbolic sharing of a meal with others, while remembering how Jesus shared meals with his followers, and how he welcomed everyone to the table - eating with sinners and the unclean.     If I were to change communion it would be to make it a real meal and a real time of sharing, to which all were invited, rather than a symbolic one.   Or at least give us a hunk of bread and a large cup of wine to dip it in, rather than a tiny morsel touched to the serface of a small bit of grape juice.   (Always with the choice of rice crackers and/or fruit juice available to make it completely inclusive of those who have problems with wheat or alcohol.

 I wouldn't take a communion that tried to literally implement it and would leave any church that used that technology. The value of communion is in the symbolism, not the literal act.

Given that most Protestant churches don't believe in transubstantiation anyway, I can't see it being any use to them.The RCs already believe that transubstantiation is happening through the presence of God and would likely reject the notion of doing it technologically. I forget what the Eastern Orthodox stance on it is. IOW, this is likely a technology in search of a problem rather than something that anyone would actually find useful.

Mendalla

Ummm - no I don't think I'd be going for that one Innana.  I'm not actually a believer in transubstantiation either.

As a bit of an aside - I was at a lecture recently by a cultural anthropologist; he was talking about some local historial religious beliefs & practices among Aboriginal people.   One practice was, after death, that people would eat a small bit of the deceased if that person had had power/characteristics the living wished to acquire - for example if a courageous warrior died, the community may eat small bits of his heart to gain strength and courage.  The next picture the lecturer put up on the screen was of communion & transubstantiation belief - suggesting that we are not so removed as we may think from some old traditions.   Interesting to contemplate.

Transubstantiation is taught by the RC church (I'm not dissing the RC church) by their literal interpretation of the body and blood of Christ.  Non-RC bodies view communion as a symbolic act (Sheesh, haven't they heard of metaphors, the UCC has.).  So much for literalism (Where's DL when we need his 'wisdom'). 

Maybe the RC church got into the theory of transubstantiation in order to counter the desire of some parishioners to eat the heart of there priest?  (just a joke - a joke!)

lol kay.

In the Baptist denominations, the taking of the bread and the juice are seen as symbolic acts. I don't think the technology you propose would go over big for us.

A lot of technology has that effect on Baptists.