Thx.....everybody for the outstanding comments. The question has come up many times re: the value and dangers of sharing "experiences" including claims as to Enlightenment. Don't be shy, I will value everybody's testimonials and claims without putting anybody down with one exception. I have a zero tolerance for "Neo-Advaita" and will call people out whenever possible (or, I will ignore them as in most of the Batgappers).
I no longer have Suzanne's excellent book, but it appears that she was approaching Self-Realizaiton as defined by Ramana Maharshi (may be MMY's Brahman Consciousness); and I'm reminded of Ramana's Self-Realization experience of July 17, 1896: All of a sudden and without prior formal meditative practice, he felt like he was "dying" and using the words "as if dead" he apparently slipped into or fell into (as he says) Self-Realization or complete non-dual Reality. However, he apparently never shared any type of confusion, unpleasant Kundalin experience (or even a prior Kundalini experience); and none of the Ongological crises had by Suzanne. Just the Self, from that day to his death. The apparent confusion Suzanne expressed and it's remedy as she approached physical death may have been caused by the Neo-Advaitic fallacy: that there's no relative self, no ordinary ego, no experience, no karma, etc etc, no no no....to the point of denying all of relative existence. It's easy to see how some claimants to E. can easily fall into this last snare of Maya. Then, just before her death, she quit denying her relative identity as "Suzanne" and got out of the Neo-Advaitic trap. The typical message of Neo-Advaita is that people should give up their "story" (personal relative history and identity and "Just Be". No techniques necessary - just Be. That's the message of the main proponent of Neo-Advaita in the 20-th century: HWL Poonja and his many disciples such as Andrew Cohen and Gangaji. ymmv