I think for this "intensive" approach to therapy the quality of presence and non-judgemental approach of the therapist is really key for it to be effective.
This is easier said than done. It's quite common to have therapists who have themselves unresolved issues, thus limiting their ability to be truly present with the patient.
People open up only when they feel safe, so the main "danger" underlined by the critics in the article is to cause the patient to close up even more.
I did talk therapy and it was useful, but sometimes I wished it was more "intensive". Unless you are super motivated to open up and bring things to the table, the therapist is perfectly happy to hear you talk , for years if need be.
I think part of the reason for this is that from the therapist and patient's perspective, a talk session will almost always have some effect. Simply to be able to vent relieves a bit of stress (and associated symptoms)... but if the patient keeps his shield up, and the therapist doesn't push buttons... or ask salient questions... then this can just go on and on.
I don't see a problem with the "intensive" apporach described in the article, so long as they are addressing patients with physical symptoms who have been in and out of the medical support for years. Those are typically people who are NOT already open to the idea that they may have unresolved trauma, and even downright averse to it. So they are the ones who would benefit the most I think, for a bit of a button pushing.