Its great to see this stuff being talked about openly in a non-buddhist forum. Some comments...
Based on the interview around 8:16 her idea of non-self, she is basically talking about witnessing / persence as being special or permenant.
This is the Adivaita Vedanta view, rather than a Buddhist one. At around 38:00 they talk about tribalism from Buddhism towards Adivaita.
Except it isn't necessarily tribalism, but rather the Buddhists trying to convey an experential realization.
The discovery of presence or witnessing is a wonderful realization in its own right. But when it is reified as true Self or permanance it is an obstruction to the realization of Annata.
In the realization of Annata the presence or witnessing type awareness is seen to be just another sensation.
So in realizing Annata the witnessing quality, or presence is thus stripped of special importance. A sensation cannot witness or illuminate another sensation. The very appearance of sensations is its illuminating quality. Thus we can say they are self-luminous.
Some vedanta teachers also talk about something like the 'Absolute' (eg. Nisrigadatta in his later years) that is beyond presence. Realizing this 'absolute' is closer to the Buddhist realization of non-arising bliss.
But their view becomes quite convoluted when they try to integrate the realization into the Vedic view oneness, for eg...
http://blogs.k10world.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/A_Dimensionless_Map_For_Self-R-1.jpeg
I think various Buddhist views like Dependent Origination, annata, and emptienss do a better job at pointing to the realization while minimizing confusion with things like 'presence' or 'True Self'. But that may just be a matter of personal taste.