There's the spiritual sense, which might be described as fully understanding and accepting the impermanence of the world and the "artificiality" of meaning.
Separately, there's "getting" something in a knowledge area. E.g. you finally understood how pointers work in C.
The author seems to start with the first... but then immediately goes wrong. He assumes if you're enlightened then you want to spread it -- but this is the exact opposite of enlightenment, so the author has it 100% backwards.
Then he eventually veers into "But what do you know about education and foreign policy, ecology and immigration, tax reform and monetary policy?" Which is the second sense of enlightenment, but has nothing to do with the first.
Spiritual enlightment has nothing to do with applied knowledge in any of those.
This is... really just a bad article. The author doesn't seem to understand what enlightenment is at all, and is trying to satirize/criticize it because of that. It's kind of sad, in a way.