Fingerprints of the Gods seems to be the type of book that is either loved or loathed, either convincing people utterly, or leaving them mocking its credibility. I don't particularly stand in either camp.
Although many of the theories are interesting, and even possible, they are probably not the answers to the mysteries highlighted and the questions asked. Just because there are flaws in accepted Egyptology, that does not mean that a race of super humans built the pyramids.
Hancock raises some very good points, and finds fascinating correlations in the themes of ancient myth. Unfortunately the conclusions he comes up with leave many more questions than you were faced with in the first place, and seem a bit too far fetched to be totally credible. His opinions may point to a different truth than that accepted by the close minded members of the archeological and scientific community, but in taking things too far into the extreme he will not be taken as a credible source by those he seeks to challenge.
The ideas put forward left me with the same feelings I have when reading conspiracy theory websites or books - it all seems possible, but when all weighed up after the event it just all seems too unlikely to wholly believe.
FOTG was definitely an interesting read, but rather than changing my life, as others have stated, it just changed the way I view ancient prehistory and the way it is perceived by modern scholars.