There are really two interrelated questions at stake here. First, there is a question about the "sanity" of an individual relative to a culture. Second, there is a question about the "sanity" of the views of that culture. Much is hidden in the term "sanity" here however.
The first question is easily resolved. An individual is "sane" relative to their culture if they express views that are within certain norms for their culture and its expectations. What this does not make clear at all is whether this is something we should grant is "sane" or something we should say is "sane in the views of that culture." To know which, we will need to take a stand on the relativity of value.
This is where the second issue comes up. Here, I would maintain that merely because something is well-adjusted to a culture does not mean we should call it "sane." But this is because I believe there are some objective features of human flourishing (See for instance here). We needn't think the list is exhaustive (e.g., we are not losing out if we have a different musical scale), but if we think there are some objective facts about human flourishing, then it stands to reason that we can consider a culture that works directly against those to represent a failure of sanity -- and adjustment to that culture to also be a failure of sanity.
One sentence in the quotation strikes me as odd: "This was not forced by social norms but a result of the strong shame." I don't know what this is supposed to mean -- as social norms are often enforced through shame. Legal norms perhaps would be enforced through laws and punishments meted out in the name of justice.
Thus, the problem presents several points of difficulty:
- Are we relativists about value or do we think there are at least some objective features?
- If we are relativists, are we to frame our evaluations in our own terms or in the terms of the culture we want to evaluate?
- When we say "sanity" do we mean a merely cultural notion of adaptation or do we mean to refer to our modern ideas about psychology or do we mean healthy relative to some ideal of flourishing?