Pythagorean said:
My nihilist point of view is that the point of life (as far as each of us individuals is concerned) is subjective, but that shouldn't demean the value of the meaning of life any.
You have not yet made it clear whether you want to discuss the particular world-view of a vacuous internet self-development guru or some general philosophical question.
But it the general question is about the meaning of life, as implied by your claims of nihilism, then the best way of finding meaning would be through a well-grounded theory of meaning.
Science generally tries to model the world in meaningless terms (material explanation, effective and substantive cause only). Meaning is to be found in Aristotle's other two causes - formal and final.
Modern religion claims to fill the causal gap, supplying the meaning - the formal and final causality. It sort of works in some ways, but it fails in the wider sense.
Where it works is when it does encode successful group-think. Religions evolved as the moral codes of cultures. They would be the accumulated wisdom of how to act that would allow groups of people to collectively be successful. Religion in that sense is not random ideas or weird beliefs but just time-proven ways of behaving.
So the religious group-think is meaningful information that should shape individuals.
Modern society as we know it became secular because the group-think became more general. Through philosophy and abstraction, we moved to a system based on general laws and principles - the local freedoms granted within a generalised framework of more fundamental constraints.
This more detached approach - where individuals were suddenly made more responsible for their own decisions against a background of philosophical "truths" rather than more immediate social group "truths" - did leave people uncertain about where the actual meaning in their actions came from. Science too, being so strictly materialistic, eroded this sharp sense of meaning that exists in the small world of traditional society (where every rock and tree has social meaning).
A gap was created. Confusion was bred. Meaning, in the systems view, always comes from the global scale of the hierarchy. Which for humans means the wider social group. But in modern society, where is our "group" that is our constraining context? It seems to be spread over so many levels, to be so diffuse and hard to see, that we can feel there is no rock of certainty at all.
Some people respond by looking for certainty in the hermetic rigidity of some religious cult (scientology, etc). Or a social tribe (punks, emos). Or a career (the persona or a salesperson, a doctor, an engineer). Or a nationality (a proud american, a proud israeli).
There are other responses like the attempt to transcend reality, to become the meaning giver yourself - Nietzsche's superman. Each of us can ascend the ladder of self-development to become our own god.
This is what makes the likes of Pavlina so objectionable and shallow. It fails to recognise that meaning comes from our global constraints. To be globally free would in fact to become actually meaningless.
How you go about finding meaningful constraints in a modern world with so many options, so many choices, and so little stability, is an interesting question. But Pavlina is not offering any intelligent guidance.
The answer lies not in transcending group-think but in finding the most satisfactory (for your purposes) level of group-thought from which to derive meaning in your actions.
The self-actualisation of new age spiritualism is a nebulous path. At least organised religion has organisation, even if it seems dated and out of touch with modern reality and knowledge.
A better modern response might be an awareness of the global constraints set by the bounds of human nature and the Earth's ecological limits. Issues like peak oil or climate change certainly ought to be a concrete source of meaning in people's lives.
