It could be true that intentionally obscure writing might force certain readers to struggle with a text. It might also be true that struggling with a text (for some) might result in better comprehension since the reader was forced to re-read and ruminate throughout the day. However, none of this is necessary if a person wishes to adopt these good study habits.
You appear to be asking something slightly different than the question presented in the link you've provided, however: whether imprecise (unclear, mysterious, poetic, verbose, etc) writing might be able to prove things that clear and intentionally clear writing cannot prove. In my opinion, the answer is obviously "no". I wonder if anyone within other disciplines (mathematics, logic, or one of the physical sciences) would give such a theory any serious consideration. Probably not! Why? Because demonstration, evidence, and clear-thinking is the best we've got (when possible).
But even if obscurantism cannot have access to its own unique methods of proof or uniquely prove certain classes of assertions, it CAN entertain individuals who are easily bored or skeptical of dry sciences. Additionally, if the vast majority of the dry (or rigorous, unpretentious, evidence-based) sciences rule against some idea in unison, perhaps the only way to respond is by constructing a seemingly elegant, mysterious, and "deep" exposition that pretends to offer readers more than "mere" evidence or reasons for accepting some description of the world (i.e. a method of obtaining authenticity, life-direction, a new level of consciousness, or access to God's mind).
My opinion, however, is that obscure writing is dishonest at best ... an unfortunate methodology often relied upon when the thinker is either unable to think scientifically (perhaps in terms of intellectual ability) or when he finds himself in need of an extravagant-sounding theory in order to convince gullible people of some alternative.
Rigorous study, actual research, and creative problem-solving is infinitely more difficult than heavily politicized wand-waving. It's easier to feel like you're progressing and it's easier to indoctrinate people when you've chosen the latter as your M.O. But hey, do what you need to do, I guess.