I think they meant a fire itself would need to burn 10 hours a day for 6 days a week - the chopping to support that fire. The light over the duration is as much as a lightbulb for one hour.
I can't see any combination, length of time burned or length of time to gather the material, where it takes 60 hours to get a fire that outputs as much light as a single lightbulb over one hour.
However, a 60W incandescent bulb puts out about 800 lumens, which is about 64 candela. So one bulb-hour is indeed about 60 candle-hours. This is omnidirectional output, useful output may be less.
The original paper reports a 21 pounds of firewood was measured to produce 2.1 foot-candles (22 lux) for 3.4 hours. Overall useful fireplace output was estimated at about 1.7 lumen-hours per pound of wood, which is 10 lumens (just under 1 candela) on average for that 21 pound fire.
By focusing on light output, and not the heat output, I still think it's an incomplete comparison, as an LED bulb may be very bright and cheap to run, but it won't keep you very warm in a cave in prehistoric Zhoukoudian.
This is why i dont like these kind of studies. Clearly it does not take 60 hours to find a dead tree in the woods, break it down, and light it on fire.
Might not be far off if you don't have very effective tools (Peking Man had simple stone tools) or you've exhausted nearby suitable wood supplies like sticks you can just pick up or trees you can tackle, so you have to travel out and drag it back.
The original study estimated 10 pounds (5kg) of wood foraged, trimmed and dried per hour of labour. That sounds low with a saw and an axe (and very low with a chainsaw), but might be about right with primitive tools including travel and processing and wood stack maintenance (no tarps either).
