That’s the context that is needed here. I believe Bugbee was debunking the 48-hours of darkness “Bro-myth.”
He was apparently stumped as to why anyone would believe starving a struggling plant could be beneficial and in an off-hand manner suggested that maybe 48-hours of light could be beneficial but not deprivation.
He wasn’t endorsing 48-hours of light but rather dismissing the idea that there could be any sort of logic to believing a possible benefit could be derived from depriving the plant of light.
Essentially he was saying giving it 48-hours of uninterrupted light makes more sense than the opposite.
But he wasn’t endorsing that as a legitimate method IMO.