As someone more used to point-set topology, who is unfamiliar with the inner workings of lattice theory, I am looking to learn about the localic interpretation of topology, of which I only have a limited understanding. As such, I have some questions:
I would recommend Peter Johnstone's "Stone Spaces", Cambridge University Press, 1982.
For a recent result see Alex Simpson's "Measure, Randomness and Sublocales". He shows that in locale theory it is possible to have an isometry-invariant measure on $\mathbb{R}^n$ for which all subsets are measurable. He also defines the locale of random sequences as the sublocale of those sequences which satisfy all measure 1 properties. The locale of random sequences is not empty (but has no points!), and in fact its measure is 1. All of this is quite impossible if you insist that spaces must have lots of points.
This isn't a precise answer to either of your two questions. However, it sounds like you're interested in learning about locales, so maybe it's useful to make the following general point.
The theory of locales is often motivated as follows: often in topology (e.g. in the definition of sheaf) the points of a space are irrelevant, so we might as well abstract them away and work with open sets only. That's fine, but what possibly doesn't get said often enough is that the resulting theory is a piece of algebra.
Let me say that more exactly. A frame is a partially ordered set with finite meets and arbitrary joins, such that meets distribute over joins. Equivalently, it is a set X equipped with:
satisfying a bunch of equations. (There's no need to mention the order relation explicitly, since it can be recovered from the rest of the structure: $x \leq y$ iff $x \wedge y = x$.) A map of frames is a map of sets commuting with all the operations. Thus, the category of frames is a category of algebras in any of several standard senses: e.g. it's monadic over the category of sets.
(It's a slightly unusual category of algebras in that it includes infinitary operations, and indeed infinitary operations of arbitrarily high arity, but still, it shares many of the good features of old friends like the categories of groups, rings, modules, etc.)
The category of locales is by definition the opposite of the category of frames.
So, this is a really literal instance of the slogan "geometry is dual to algebra".
My favorite reference for point-free topology is the very new book.
Frames and Locales: Topology Without Points by Picado and Pultr.
This book is an excellent book for those who want to learn about point-free topology for the first time and as a reference for those who are already familiar with point-free topology.
As for recent results in point-free topology, I have recently been researching a duality in point-free topology. My new duality represents all zero-dimensional frames as Boolean algebras along with specified least upper bounds.
We therefore define a Boolean admissibility system to be a pair $(B,\mathcal{A})$ such that $\mathcal{A}$ is a subset of the powerset $P(B)$ that satisfies the following properties.
If $R\in\mathcal{A}$, then $R$ has a least upper bound.
$\mathcal{A}$ contains each finite subset of $P(B)$
If $R\in\mathcal{A},S\subseteq B,S\subseteq\downarrow\bigvee R=\{a\in B|a\leq\bigvee R\}$ and $R$ refines $S$(i.e. for each $r\in R$ there is an $s\in S$ with $r\leq s$), then $S\in\mathcal{A}$ as well.
If $R\in\mathcal{A}$ and $R_{r}\in\mathcal{A},\bigvee R_{r}=r$ for $r\in R$, then $\bigcup_{r\in R}R_{r}\in\mathcal{A}$
If $R\in\mathcal{A}$, then $\{r\wedge a|r\in R\}\in\mathcal{A}$ for each $a\in B$.
Property $1$ states that $\mathcal{A}$ is a collection of least upper bounds and properties $2-5$ state that $\mathcal{A}$ contains all sets with least upper bounds that you would want to include. For instance, in a Boolean algebra you would always want to include the least upper bound of a finite set. Axioms $2-5$ get rid of all the trivial differences between Boolean admissibility systems. A Boolean admissibility system $(B,\mathcal{A})$ is called subcomplete if whenever $R\cup S\in\mathcal{A}$ and $r\wedge s=0$ whenever $r\in R,s\in S$, then $\bigvee R$ exists.
I recently proved that the category of Boolean admissibility systems is equivalent to the category of all pairs $(L,A)$ such that $L$ is a frame and $A$ is a Boolean sublattice of $L$ which is a "basis" for $L$(i.e. $A$ is a sublattice of $L$ consisting of complemented elements where each element in $L$ is the join of elements in $A$). This equivalence of categories restricts to an equivalence between the category of all zero-dimensional frames and subcomplete Boolean admissibility systems.
With this duality, I was able to characterize point-free topological properties in terms of the corresponding Boolean admissibility systems. These properties include ultraparacompactness, ultranormality, $\kappa$-compact zero-dimensional frames(where $\kappa$ is a cardinal), extremally disconnected frames(as Boolean admissibility systems which are complete Boolean algebras), Lindelof $P$-frames(as $\sigma$-complete Boolean algebras), and other properties.
This result does not have as much of a pointed analogue since very rarely does a Boolean admissibility system correspond to zero-dimensional space (i.e. a spatial zero dimensional frame). The Boolean admissibility systems that correspond to topologies are precisely the subcomplete Boolean admissibility systems $(B,\mathcal{A})$ where each ideal closed under taking least upper bounds in $\mathcal{A}$ can be extended to a maximal ideal closed under taking least upper bounds in $\mathcal{A}$. This property can be characterized by a very strong distributivity property and very few Boolean admissibility systems satisfy this property.
I should also note that one can represent any pair $(L,A)$ where $L$ is a frame and $A$ is a "basis" for $L$ as the poset $A$ along with specified least upper bounds. Unfortunately, even though this setting is more general, I have not yet found a way to represent any separation axioms in terms of posets with specified least upper bounds.
As for question 2.: it's hardly recent, but since I didn't see it mentioned in this thread, let me mention that the Tychonoff theorem for locales does not require the axiom of choice and is a piece of purely constructive mathematics. So this cannot be in any way a translation of any of the proofs familiar from general topology; proving it involves genuinely new ideas specific to locale theory. See also this MathOverflow answer to the question "What is your favorite proof of Tychonoff's theorem?", and particularly the comments appearing below.
if you read french, you might find interesting to look at the paper of Olivier Leroy : https://arxiv.org/abs/1303.5631 where he shows that all subsets are mesurable and that there are hidden intersection in the Banach-Tarski paradox.