Licensed under
CC BY-SA 4.0
: also see my full Copyright statement.
Since the body and neurology are at least superficially similar across all humans, our evolution is largely common and our phjysiology is likewise shared, the same basic material is being addressed by every therapy, exercise, spiritual practice, and self-help technique that exists - or at least it should be.
So there is inivitably going to be some similarity with many different approaches ... however, see the earlier comments on raspberry pavolva. And therefore is is possible to think that they are truly all the same like a plate of undifferentiated blancmange - see in particular the notes on multiplicity in unity.
Firstly, although this approach occasionaly approaches the body through dialogue. it is not a psychotherapy in the normally understood meaning of the word - because literally everything relates back to the body and your senses rather than thoughts. Neither is it a therapy in the normally understood meaning of the word, because the focus is almost completely on health (instead of what might be the problem). However despite choice being exercised to preferentially focus on health, it also has little to do with the new age/NLP positive thinking (or new thought movement from which they originated) - because everything is acknowledged and considered valuable but with the understanding that some focus of attention is more useful than others; AND choice is exercised (it's not “just all energy”).
When I first started to look at similarities, I was surprised by the similarity with some aspects of CBT: which recognises the window of tolerance, suggests choices be made as to what is attended to, and acknowledges that distorted cognition is a major problem, considers an anchor to the here-and-now to be important, and that the “answer” includes psychoeducation, mindfulness and less focus on the past. However, (to name just one major difference) whilst CBT considers distorted cognition to be an individual error, I see it as largely a societal one that becomes amplified even more in certain individuals - who are then blamed for not thinking “correctly”. Most importantly, I do not consider cognitive changes in behaviour to be particularly useful, because they only work for small and relatively superficial imprints and cannot possibly get deep enough to address issues that drive non-conscious somatic responses. And whilst I very much like the work of Carl Jung (and also like to quote him!), if you read through the theroy and application here to any extent you will find that there are absolutely no analysis - merely a fundamentally simple shift in how sensory attention is used. The theoretical complexity arises because the reasons why this approach works are not very well catered for in popularised models of the body or of the mind.