I have to agree, it seems like the article writers don't have a very good grasp of what trauma is... Worse that by scooping everyone up in RTS... It's moving backwards.
Meaning, yes, the environment is absolutely going to affect people... But whether they have PTSD from abuse, or Phobias from abuse, or an Anxiety disorder from abuse, or an EatingDisorder from the abuse, or <insert every other possible result from trauma; either causing or making a pre-existing condition worse> ... Trying to lump everyone under the same umbrella of religion (or any other background theme)? Isn't actually going after their specific issue.
Of course there are going to be common themes. Whether your trauma was via your parents, your religion, your war, your school, your spouse, your drive... The background matters. The common themes will be there. Regardless of what your specific diagnosis is. Ignoring the specifics to focus on the general? Just seems dangerously backwards. If you have an eating disorder, you HAVE to focus on the eating disorder AND what feeds into it (religion, parenting, war, what have you)... Not just focus on the religion (which, ironically, is exactly how the article's subject first attempted to deal with her eating disorder -to massive failure). If you have PTSD? You have to focus on the PTSD... Aaaaand what feeds into it. Etc so forth and so on. Each disorder and it's context. It's like, just because 50 coins all have the same reverse side? Doesn't mean they all have the same front. Or the same value. The reverse side of the coin may be religion, or betrayal, or parenting, or motor vehicles, or war... But the side with the denomination/diagnosis... GAD, MDD, PTSD, BPD, etc. (pick your acronym) matters far beyond the background thematics.
So the article is a weird read for me, as it's essentially a circular argument: here's what person A did which didn't work & here's why, so what THIS is, is doing the exact same thing! :O_o: Beg pardon? Wait, what???