Well, that kinda looks like an unqualified quack to me. No offense. It just doesn't line up with psychology I'm familiar with, and attributing schizophrenia to "bisexual repression" seems fairly ridiculous. I'm not a trained psychologist, but I have studied schizophrenia a bit and I'm pretty sure it's mostly a genetic condition. In addition, almost anyone who refers to "sexual repression" as being a central explanation for anyone's mental state, especially famous figures, is almost always a quack.
As a historian, I'd go with the standard line of thinking among most historians I've studied:
1) A few decades ago, there was a brief fad among historians that involved using pop psychology to analyze historical figures. This often led to speculation that sexual repression was involved in some of their decisions and beliefs. (Hitler was one of their favorites to analyze.) But their analysis was based on very basic and twisted understandings of outdated Freudian stuff, and they were unqualified to make this sort of analysis.
In a few cases, psychologists have studied historical figures, and sometimes they do good work. But others didn't understand the history, and would do things like take propaganda at face value as part of their evidence. (For example, Mein Kampf is propaganda. Hitler was outright lying about his views and it didn't reflect his later policies. Taking it at face value isn't helpful.)
Even worse, many figures were the subject of negative propaganda from their enemies. The whole "Hitler was one-fourth Jewish" myth comes from some of his enemies in the right-wing movements, before he killed them off. Rasputin's reputation has been somewhat exagerrated, and the account of his freakish, superhuman fortitude during his death is probably a lie to make him seem demonic. Joan of Arc was also smeared quite viciously.
The pop psychology fad has been abandoned because it produced very little useful information. In addition, in attributed mental illnesses to nearly every historical figure, and more detailed studies of them rarely bore it out.
(For the record, Hitler was almost certainly not insane, except when he got sick toward the end of his life. He seemed to have bipolar disorder, but that was about it. Stalin was probably totally sane.)
2. Attributing schizophrenia to people who claim to have mystical experiences is not scientific or historical. First of all, even if they were having hallucinations or delusions, "schizophrenia" covers a lot more than just that. Secondly, quite a few of these people were lying or speaking metaphorically. Third, having a mystical experience doesn't mean you're insane, and certainly doesn't mean "schizophrenia."
Many of the Biblical Prophets were just social reformers, for instance. Pope Urban II was probably speaking metaphorically or outright lying when he said Jesus had told him to start the first Crusade. Joan of Arc was maligned by her political enemies, and her contributions were downplayed to her being a "mascot" by her own allies (who betrayed her) and some early historians.
Also, if this particular author thinks "Christian fundamentalist" means "mystical experiences," then they absolutely don't know what they're talking about. Pat Robertson does all this stuff, and is a Christian fundamentalist. But Jerry Falwell was also a Christian fundamentalist, and one major focus of his efforts was anti-mysticism. His church regularly targeted faith healers, for instance, despite his political alliance with a few.
