It’s not that hard to setup a real empirical testing ground, so why don’t we see this happen?
It’s actually very tricky to set up and conduct a truly scientific listening test. Perhaps it’s become a trivial undertaking for you, but conducting a valid test is not as easy as it might appear to the casual observer. That makes it easy for such a person to dismiss an audiophile’s experience with a wave of the hand and the instruction to "prove it in a blind test."
There are also those who believe they are exempt from proving their claims because science is already on their side. That may sound absurd, but it’s a common claim, as evidenced by the post from @brf just above this post.
Then there are those who believe that no listening test can possibly be scientific. While I don’t agree with them, I do think that most audiophiles have little use for scientific, blind testing. It tends to be a tedious, cumbersome and time-consuming endeavor and - when the test is complete - often fails to prove much.
I don’t care for the notion expressed in the cliche of not walking the walk. Real audiophiles "walk the walk" when they make decisions about their systems. That some may not like their gait is their problem. Just because someone doesn’t do things your way does not make then a fake, as you allege.
As for the myths: The world is filled with myths, and audio is not unique in the regard.