I can't disparage this book totally; even though a big part of me wants to. It's a decent read if one reads it as complete fiction. See, the problem is with the person of John Comenius primarily, only secondarily the book itself. Now, it may seem that that might be just ad hominemism, but it isn't, and I'll explain why.
Comenius presents this book as almost an anti-utopian, anti-world "spiritual" autobiography; but, if anyone knows anything about Comenius, they will know that this presentation is false. He was not of the opinion that God's kingdom can only be found in the heart. He was, in fact, a utopianist and one of the early proponents of premillennialism/chiliasm in England, when this cultic ideology was still incredibly unpopular among English Protestants. Worse still, is the fact that he had known ties to the early esoteric body known as the Rosicrucians (they were not a full fledged secret society at this point in time). His ties to this esoteric ideological collective can be verified in numerous sources, including this one. He was a disciple of Johann Valentin Andreae, the recognized author of the Rosicrucian manifestos. While, admittedly, Andreae and Comenius tried to distance themselves from that group, they never fully renounced it's ideals; indeed, they still openly promoted it's main idea of utopianism (while almost certainly working covertly to bring about it's manifestation, i.e. the English commonwealth). They only downplayed the occultist aspects of Rosicrucianism. In this book, Comenius devotes a chapter to the Rosicrucians. He does paint them in a negative light, but this is a bit of reverse psychology on the reader because Comenius still supported much of their ideology, as did Andreae. It is interesting that in this chapter, we probably have the earliest account referencing the myth of the ascended masters. After John Dee and Edward Kelly, the phenomena of channeling discarnate spirits became more and more common. I think this is an early witness of that.
There are many things that make me uncomfortable about Comenius. He not only helped to promote premillennialism in England, he was also the catalyst for the forming of the Royal Society, and, indirectly, the Freemasons. The Royal Society set the stage for deism and atheism, due to it's promotion of empiricist and materialistic science. The earliest use of the term "illuminati" (way before Weishaupt) is found in an address of Comenius to the Royal Society; at least, as far as I am aware, it is the earliest. 17th century premillennialists sowed the seeds of the idiotic utopian eschatology that would later metasticize as the cultish heresy called Dispensationalism (probably the worst corruption of mainstream Christianity there ever was). Comenius, by some accounts, was even a supporter of the Jewish false messiah Shabbatai Zevi, a fairly disturbed individual, who had even more disturbed followers. When one does a study of the history of secret societies and occultism it is inevitable that Comenius' name will come up if one is thorough. He bears a significant responsibility for the spread of secret societies and the parasitic affect they've had upon the world subsequently.
To sum up: The book is a lie when presented as autobiography and as a book written by a Christian author. His Christianity is highly questionable when seen in the greater context of his life and pursuits. His paradise of the heart is also false. Comenius attempted, with many other people, to bring in an earthly utopia and a worldly paradise. His paradise was an altogether worldly one, not a spiritual one; in other words, his labyrinth of the world becomes the paradise of the pagan heart; out of chaos, order. Echoes of Comenius are found all over the globalist agenda; from the U.N., to UNESCO, to the CFR, to the Trilateral Commission, the Georgia guidestones, etc etc etc etc ad nauseam. The weight of accountability on this man would not be something anyone would want to take on before God. ( )