First of all it's important to note that Graham Hancock is universally agreed by historians to be totally wrong in all his main claims and engaging in pseudo-scholarship. There have been some threads in the past on this - https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/f3mkai/for_those_that_are_familiar_with_him_how_do_you/ by /u/Bentresh links some of them. So any unusual idea he posts in support of should be treated with a healthy dose of scepticism.
The simple answer is it's not at all plausible. I'll try to outline some. Biblical scholarship is a huge field with lots of theories on huge but limited evidence events like the rise of Hebrew monotheism but I feel confident in saying no scholar in the field would entertain this idea. I'm not familiar at all with Akhenaten so I won't be able to refute any particular claims made in the article about him.
Importantly, the Exodus absolutely did not happen as the Bible says. There are many theories of where the story comes from that are respectable within academia but our evidence is limited. But we know for certain there was no large scale movement of people out of Egypt. All the evidence points to the Israelites being a culture that developed out of the indigenous Canaanite culture and eventually rewrote their history to present themselves as always having being distinct not just culturally but ancestrally too. Therefore the attempt of this article to construct a parallel for events from Exodus but with a different character are pointless - the events of Exodus simply didn't happen. Theories of a "little Exodus", where for whatever reason some people left Egypt and joined with the Hebrews, usually being identified with the Levites (who have a somewhat unusual status in the Bible) exist but again they have nothing to do with the slavery of Hebrews. Exodus was composed long after the Exodus itself was supposed to have happened - at least 800 years. Similarly, if any real Moses ever existed, the story of him in Exodus has absolutely nothing to do with the real one.
One obvious major difference is that Akhenaten's single god was a sun god. The God of the Hebrew Bible is not. In the burning bush story God introduces himself to Moses as YHWH (also typically written Yahweh as the current scholarly consensus on how the vowels were spoken - Jehovah is an older idea of what the vowels were). In Exodus 6:3 God says he was known to Moses's ancestors as "El Shaddai". El means god and is used with the bible along with the plural elohim (gods) to refer to YHWH specifically and alone but also is the name of the Canaanite pantheon's high god. The meaning of "shaddai" is unfortunately completely unclear, with many theories but as far as I know none that have achieved any sort of consensus. However, something that this hints at is that at some point El and YHWH were merged together in Israelite religion.
The thing is, outside the fact of creating it, the Bible almost never shows YHWH having any sort of attachment to the sun. The closest I can think of is Joshua 10, where the Sun and Moon stop in the sky, but that's a highly unusual case. Generally, the natural force YHWH is most associated with is the storm. A very clear example is Psalm 29:
The voice of the Lord is over the waters;
the God of glory thunders,
the Lord, over mighty waters...
The voice of the Lord causes the oaks to whirl,
and strips the forest bare;
and in his temple all say, “Glory!”
The imagery of the psalm is sometimes considered to be similar to that of Baal, also a storm god in the Canaanite pantheon and a particularly major one. He's the regular subject of attacks in the Bible. It's clear that the imagery and understanding of YHWH is totally understandable in the context of the indigenous religion of the Canaanites that the Israelite religion developed from.
It's also important to realise that monotheism simply did not develop as the Bible story wants to say. The bible itself repeats over and over how many people worshipped other gods. The history in 1 and 2 Kings praises several kings as pious to God and then immediately mentions as qualification that they did not take away the "high places" - which may have been sacrifice sites to YHWH or to other gods. Even in the story of Solomon's Temple, there are "Asherah" (some kind of sacred pole) which share a name with Asherah, El's wife in Canaanite mythology and that only get destroyed in the reign of King Josiah.
A common hypothesis is that the emphasis on YHWH as the *only* god to worship only developed in the reign of King Josiah of Judah and the idea that that was in fact *the* correct way of Israelite worship was retrojected by the priests who wrote, edited and redacted the key aprts of the bible - particularly the "Deuteronomistic History" which stretches from Deuteronomy to Kings and is generally considered to have been mostly written and compiled under his reign and tells a story where all of the Israelite's problems are down to lacking faith in YHWH and promising a glorious new time for the Israelites under the first leader since Moses to *truly* follow YHWH. Unfortunately for the story he died unceremoniously to a passing Egyptian army and soon the Babylonians invaded and ended Judah's independence.
We in fact have a relatively late example of Jewish people clearly considering themselves devout followers of YHWH and yet also believing in and positively talking about other gods. The Elephantine Papyri are a collection of documents made by a Jewish community stationed at the Egyptian fortresses of Elephantine and Aswan in the 5th century BC. They built a temple to YHWH, celebrated passover and yet the letters also contains references to the gods, plural, and particularly to the god Bethel, who appears in many names and as someone to swear oaths to. They communicated with the temple in Jerusalem at the same time.
Also as an interesting aside, the "Kenite hypothesis" was at one time a popular explanation of the origin of YHWH (who does appear to have originally been an outsider to the Canaanite pantheon). This notes that Moses "discovered" God while in the area of his father in law, who is called either Kenite (in Judges) or Midianite (Exodus). While the hypothesis in its original form is no long accepted (primarily because it's clear Exodus is not a historical account of Moses) it is notable that the Bible at several other points associates YHWH with the area south and east of Judah/Israel as well as Sinai (and we don't know where Sinai actually was - the Sinai peninsula is named as such because one mountain there was considered to be Mount Sinai by some, partly because it's assumed it must be somewhere between Egypt and Israel). But again this shows that YHWH was *not* associated with Egypt, regardless of his actual origin.
The fact that Moses is almost certainly an Egyptian name is well known and plays into some theories around the origins of the Exodus story. But again there's no consensus and that the name may have been Egyptian doesn't point to a connection with any specific Egyptian. There's just no evidence at all that points to the story laid out in this article and plenty that points away from it.
Sources:
James Kugel, How to Read the Bible
Israel Finkelstein, The Bible Unearthed
William H. C. Propp, Exodus 1-18 (Anchor Bible Commentaries)