Well, I see what you're saying: he's essentially taken the OSRP for the upright position, and the NRP/IRP for the reversed.
However, you have to be careful when taking an interpretation from another interpretation. Those from Sunnyway (an excellent site, by the way) are a mix of common interpretations and the author's interpretations.
I think it's better to go straight to the original sources; the poems, the Eddas, etc.. and let each person find their own interpretation directly from the horse's mouth, so to speak.
(By the way, this is one reason you won't find similar, terse interpretations here on the forum; I want to provide the original sources, or links to them, but ultimately leave it up to each member to decide for themselves what the runes actually mean*)
For me, there's also the matter that I don't use reversed or murkstave runes. There's no historical accounting I know of that suggests that's how they were used. I suspect that particular practice was borrowed from the Tarot, which of course is not a Northern tradition.
Admittedly, though, I'm still a little on the fence about it, as it isn't disproven either.. but at the current time, I have to believe those symbols had relatively singular meanings. I suspect that if they were meant to have dual meanings, they would have been included monolithically in each poem, since someone was concerned enough to create the poems in the first place.
But who knows? To each their own. No way is right or wrong. If they work for you, then they work!
Another layer of complexity and mystery for the rune poems are the occasional use of kennings. A kenning is a poetic phrase used to allude to something. Germanics and Norse were fond of kennings, but I think that if they wanted Kenaz to allude to "life force", they would have, more or less, said so. Kennings are typically somewhat obvious when used (at least, in the poems), such as "the fishes bath" to refer to the ocean, or "brine-stallion" to refer to a sailing vessel. In the case of the OERP, however, I don't detect any other meaning than for what it says it is -a torch.
Now, in the modern age, that may seem like a petty thing to honor with a rune. A torch? It can be hard to remember that back in those times, night was, more often than not, pitch black. If you've never been outside of a light polluted area on a new moon, you can't believe how dark it gets. Pitch black. A torch would have shone like a beacon in the ocean of dark, the only one, save the Moon, which wasn't always bright, and it was the only source of light reproducible and under the control of man. That's gotta count for something.
Additionally, it could provide a source of warmth, nothing to sneeze at in the Northern latitudes.
One other thing I see some authors and interpreters do: we cannot be selective about which elements in the poems we heed, and which we don't. Sometimes some parts go ignored. The OERP clearly says "where princes sit within", so this has some reference here to nobility. My guess is, while the torch may be
known to every man, perhaps not every commoner had the means to possess torches, to be lit in his abode all the time, thus the Prince reference.
*This is the mantra of the
Rune-Net rune studying gild run by Sweyn Plowright, author of the Rune Primer. I highly suggest anyone interested in Runes get his book, either in print format, or eBook.
The view of Rune-Net is that many rune authors have introduced their own esoteric, sometimes even eastern, belief systems into their rune literature, and sold their books on the premise that this is historically and traditionally accurate. To say the least, for an author to do this is intellectually dishonest, and I've seen it firsthand.
I have the utmost respect for Sweyn and his group for holding up an honest and true accounting of runelore. The truth is, there isn't that much to go on; there's the poems and some mentions in Norse literature, but all in all, woefully little.
