"Liquidity" in trading has two meanings, and they are barely related. Most of the confusion in this topic comes from using them as one.
Meaning one: how easily you can trade
The classical, economic sense. A liquid market is one where you can buy or sell meaningful size without moving the price: a tight spread, plenty of orders on both sides, high turnover.
This is measurable, and the measures are known: spread, book depth, volume. Liquidity in this sense is a property of an instrument and of the hour: high for a major currency pair in the session, low for a small coin overnight.
Meaning two: clusters of orders at levels
This is what Smart Money means by "liquidity above the high". The idea: protective orders rest below a prominent low and above a prominent high, making the level a place where many of them sit.
This is not measurable. The market does not show resting stop orders — no chart does. A claim about a cluster of orders is an assumption about participant behaviour, not an observation.
What of this is visible on a chart
From the first meaning, almost nothing directly: spread is invisible on a candle chart, and so is depth. Indirectly, volume — with caveats.
From the second meaning, only geometry: here is a level, here is how many times price reversed at it, here is a wick through it and a return. Whether orders exist there stays off-screen.
Hence a practical reading: when markup says "liquidity zone", read it as "a prominent level many people can see", not as "someone's stops are definitely sitting here".
Why the confusion matters
Because one conclusion gets drawn from two meanings. "Price goes to liquidity" sounds like a law of physics but rests on the second meaning — the one that cannot be checked.
No such conclusion follows from the first meaning: high liquidity does not set direction, it only means trading is cheaper.
Where else the word appears
Liquidity void — a stretch crossed without pauses. Here the word is closer to the first meaning: almost nothing traded inside.
Liquidity sweep — a pierce of a level with a return. Here it is the second: the orders at the level are assumed to have been "taken".
The same word in two different senses in neighbouring terms — not a translation error, but the state of the vocabulary in this field.