I kind of favor this option. Nobody absolutely needs a guru - but following along the path someone else has already cleared is a heck of a lot easier than cutting a random path through the jungle oneself with neither compass nor map. In the past to follow a Guru meant you only followed that one path, regardless of it other easer paths intersected later on.
Then at some point if one has an adequate understanding of the terrain and adequate skills to identify better paths from worse paths, or to cut their own path - then yes, they don’t need a Guru.

Regarding the Listening - I was about to turn it off at the 5 minute mark but decided to listen to the whole thing. He makes some bold statements up front and claims they are universals. His image of Gurus is a common one - but it seems to me to be a straw man. Are all Gurus filled with shadow vices and therefore unable to achieve Enlightenment - or only the Gurus who have made the 9 O’clock news? It’s easy to look at the Gurus we are aware of (because they have public scandals) and define that as all Gurus, while refusing to recognize that there are thousands of Gurus with healthy awakened communities numbering in the millions or even tens of millions.
Some of these communities may find a solution in his form of shadow work that he recognizes but others do still deal with shadow even if it is not in a way Keith can recognize. It isn’t necessary to “shine a light” on shadow. That is only one approach that is based in logic and a desire to “do” awakening and be in control of the process.
The books are going to be more appealing to a Western audience from where the west is in it’s awakening process. Most western minds probably are not ready for the methods that I would call more “dancing” with shadows that are based in Mysticism, ritual and symbolism.

Next is the a view of consciousness, which is based in an extremely western paradigm, where YOU are conscious of the OUTSIDE. Another valid understanding is that there isn’t a you and outside you in the first place, but even if there is, then consciousness is more a 2-way street where you and that which is outside of you become more aware of the dance you are performing together. Sometimes you act, sometimes you are acted upon. Sometimes you become aware, sometimes awareness enters you (aka grace).

I guess it’s good for me to listen to him with a mind to understand how the modern mind tries to grapple with awakening, lol. It may be more efficient for some people.

Reminds me of a phrase we often use around these parts — “the next Buddha will be the Sangha”. Which is easy to say, but what does it mean? Does it mean we collapse all hierarchies, devalue authentic mastery, and eliminate the concept of “student/teacher”? I don’t think so, and I would guess most of you would agree. My sense is that it has more to do with:

a) growing beyond the absolutist idea that a spiritual teacher possesses mastery in all things,

b) replacing this absolutism with an integral “kosmic address” scaffolding that allows us to recognize the rich topography of mastery within each of us, knowing that each of us can be very well developed in some areas but not others, and therefore we can preserve and nourish and leverage the growth hierarchies within each of us, without falling into the dominator hierarchy traps that are so common in guru-based modes of spiritual training,

c) creating a community of individuals who have cultivated the epistemic humility required to recognize those areas where each of us can learn from each other.

Which means that, even within a single conversation, the role of “teacher” can be distributed throughout the individual participants of the conversation, as each participant tries to figure out how and what they an learn from each other. However, this requires a good deal of “growing up”, “waking up”, and “cleaning up” work first, in order to “show up” without the sort of opaque egos that can so easily hijack conversations such as these. I see this as a prerequisite for any integral “community of the adequate”, or else our hidden biases, assumptions, projections, and even typological preferences can prevent us from fully seeing, valuing, and learning from each other.