"1. On the point of 'having to be in a state of distress to become enlightened', if you read the book, you would realise that he says that it can happen either way."

I have read the book, more than once, and I realise that. But how does he know for sure that the methods he teaches in the book are going to be as effective as what happened to him?

"2. He's not saying, "you do not have problems", it's about how you choose to react to those problems. Also it does not mean 'accepting everything' either. He gives an example of being 'stuck in the mud'. It's a problem and no, you don't have to accept that state."

Excuse me, but he does actually say “all problems are illusions of the mind” and “it is impossible to have a problem when your attention is fully in the Now”. so he is saying that if you are fully present then you don't have problems. He literally said, "it is impossible to have a problem".

He has said, "Whatever the present moment contains, accept it as if you had chosen it." So, that literally does mean accepting everything.

"And to nitpick on two points out of everything he has to say, that's it, that's the critical analysis?"

Actually, I wrote a follow-up article here:

https://medium.com/p/878845f6b574

"You have fundamentally not understood his teachings at a basic level. Perhaps later on in life you can reread it and the message will resonate more for you."

You assume that just because I take issue with certain things he has said that I haven't understood them. I understand them just fine, and accepted them for years, but have later come to question them more. So the situation is actually the opposite of what you think it is.