I'm always glad to see any movement arise which is dealing with trauma and healing.
Mystic, Thomas Hubl, has been a leader in some of this work with his own spin on how to go about it all. Having just glanced at some pages of this book, I have to say I am appreciative of its intentions, and I acknowledge a lot of good work is coming from it, BUT it fall far short of a good critical (integral) theorizing and political astuteness in regard to Trauma Studies in general.
The author (and ghost writer) have chose a functionalist perspective on the topic over a critical theory perspective. The critical pedagogue, integralist from the critical school, is not happy with the entire framing of this book and approach to trauma and healing. Maybe someday, I'll write a critique on it.
Meanwhile, I am not discouraging anyone from reading this and learning what is happening in this new sub-field, but to be aware and cautious, even down right critical of what is said in "theorizing" this work. I would simply say: Sure, Hubl is leading trauma work (as a practitioner would from any clinical tradition)--but there is a different between trauma studies (and practices) and critical trauma studies (and practices)--the latter, is based on a fearlessness and liberation paradigm, while the former is based on pragmatics and comfort for the middle-upper classes and their helping desires to make the world a better place (practically, and with lots of money back-up).