It is possible that a subjective notion of truth is implied in the article, but if it is stated to be so explicitly, I missed it.

Many of the assertions that the article makes would seem to require a very subjective notion of truth. "Truth" would be a label given to an experience. Of course it could apply to an experience of visual immediate reality but equally to conjunctions of words with feelings (including moral imperatives) or words with meanings experienced in conjunction with other words. An experience of assent to such conjunction could be labeled "truth".

In that sense, myth cannot be a direct communication of truth. There is no shared evidential basis. At its most successful, words may evoke experiences of assent to conjunctions in the listener. It would not even be meaningful to compare the "similarity" between speaker and listener assent experiences.