Yes, RPL is very similar to FORTH but also with some interesting differences.
RPL is dynamically typed, and knows the type of every object. Forth is untyped, and doesn't know the type of any object. That is such a large difference that the claimed similarity seems overstated.
RPL also is able to assign (and remember) a label attached to any object, as well as units for number objects. Not many other languages have that capability (I believe one might be Clojure?)
The absence of comments in stored programs is expected, based on the fact that the programs are stored in parsed form (as opposed to ASCII text). This is a problem that also arose in Lisp 1.5 and INTERLISP, and the approach there was to use a
(COMMENT ...) form that was defined to do nothing. Since RPL is postfix, there is no simple way to achieve that, although you could simply write
"Comment..." DROP to nullify the stack effect of the comment.