Acceptance is the very nature of the self. So where is question of acceptance as a 'practice'. Who has to practice 'acceptance' - either of oneself or others?
The self does not need to accept as a 'practice' because its very nature is acceptance - in the sense that it is an impartial presence, in whose presence all else is as a dependent reality. By its very nature of being nirgunam - free of all attributes and the self of all, it is an impartial all-accepting limitless self-revealing ever-present consciousness/awareness, equally present in all - sentient and insentient. Self means 'I' ... in reality, there is no 'I' other than the self.
The ego is the phantom 'I' - meaning that which poses as the separated, limited 'I' - identified with one body-mind-sense complex. Within that ego identity are the separate categories we call as inner child, adult, shadow etc. ... All phantom separated selves ... meaning they don't exist in reality. They appear to exist as long as the idea of separation, an identity, an ego separate from the whole is maintained.
As long as the ego exists for you as a reality, so long the so called 'practice' of acceptance is useful and 'healing' - for whom? For the ego. There is much resistance to things as they are - for the ego. That resistance is born of the sense of separation and it maintains and perpetuates the sense of separation. So acceptance as a 'practice' is meant for the ego - to grow in objectivity and become healthy. And when the ego is healthy enough ( the inner child, the shadow self have all integrated into the adult) and grace is sufficient for listening to an Advaita Guru, the ego is able to recognize its falseness and its sense of separation dissolves. That's moksha!
Om Tat Sat