This book was absolutely fascinating to me to read, as someone who has almost the opposite experience of divinity than her, hearing the way she understands her own mystical experiences and the role of both experience and the divine (and the pathologization of both) was, okay, interesting.
But it's completely her critique of monotheism and, specifically, the inherited hierarchy of western civilization that thinks that good/wise people believe in either 0 or 1 gods and any more than that is a moral failing.
And I don't think she deserves anything as shallow or facile as "an answer," but I do think that a) at some point we as a society should probably grapple with the fact that we use pagan/idolator the way Christians use rabbis/pharisees as rhetorical objects; b) the way that some of us monotheists have remade God in a way that lets us respond to her critiques of God by saying "God's not like that"; and c) the way that we treat the world as a thing whose awe-some-ness it is out obligation to demystify, explain, and locate primarily in the synaptic firings of our own neurons.
Also I would pay money to listen to the narrative perspective of this book duke it out with that of Halakhic Man.