Weatherup boasts that she isn't into "spiritual machismo," but I suppose I am then, because I didn't find her approach very substantial. It's a New Age philosophy that borrows ancient motifs and repackages them as a low risk, feel-good, made-for-anyone practice. I'm cool with getting everyone into meditation and lucid dreaming and loving relations with nature, but call that what it is. It is a part, but NOT the entirety, of "shamanism" -- which, admittedly, is already an umbrella term but is becoming increasingly treated as an empty buzzword.
Shamanism entails a very serious and sometimes dangerous project -- to deconstruct the ego, merge with broader consciousness, and integrate the enlightened self back into unenlightened society for the sake of improving the whole -- which I do believe everyone can and should work toward, but not without preparation. It's psychologically irresponsible to tell people they should just start banging on drums and believing everything they imagine is divine guidance. In doing so Weatherup has grossly neglected (1) the importance of individual process (ie, the run-up to the Tao: the study before practice when a person gathers mental raw materials for inspiration to arrange into wisdom rather than psychosis), and (2) any kind of connection to tradition. There was nary a mention of evolutionary context; Weatherup's advice seemed to come out of a vacuum rather than a void. I believe it's fine (even preferable) to focus on direct experience in these matters, but show respect to their ancient and diverse nature by relating that experience to the historicity of the shaman's sacred role.