"Truth is not buried deeper; it is revealed closer."

I think my reading captures one possible implication:

Focus more on present evidence than remote history.

But I would still criticize the sentence because it is stated too absolutely.

There are many cases where deeper investigation has revealed important historical truths—for example, through archaeology, newly discovered archives, or decoded inscriptions.

So the sentence works as rhetoric but not as a universal methodological principle.

My detective example also shows why the metaphor has limits. In criminal investigations, examining the immediate scene is often crucial, but investigators may also uncover decisive evidence years later through new forensic techniques or previously unavailable records.