It is one of several theories on the question among Orthodox.
Orthodoxy goes by the Church fathers and there is no ecumenical council on the question. The fathers have opposing opinions, but Orthodox don't make this a big debate between ourselves like Protestants and Catholics have, which could easily lead to confusion on the part of many Protestants who try to rigidly define the mysteries as technical dogmas.
Let me give an example. Rather curious for me is that a strict reading of the Anglican (NOT Orthodox) Articles of religion seems to say that Jesus' body is given and taken in the Eucharist ritual, and also claim that the faithful eat it but the unworthy don't. And it says: "the Bread which we break is a partaking of the Body of Christ" . This could suggest that the real presence is in the bread, and that it's not just a symbol, since after all, even the unworthy take the symbol. One of the authors of the Anglican Articles, Bp. Guest, says he inserted the word "given" to prove the real presence in the bread.
But how does it happen that the unworthy don't take Jesus' body according to Anglicans? One Anglican explanation I read and also was told is that Jesus secretly removes himself from the bread without the unworthy knowing it. In this Anglican scheme, the unworthy is told by Jesus that he is in the bread, but then Jesus basically takes back what he said and is not in the bread any more. Is this reasonable? I am skeptical of this scheme.
Eastern Orthodox on the other hand don't typically get so deep into the Transubstantiation vs Consubstantiation vs. Anglican "Real Presence + Secret Potential Withdrawal" debates that have divided the Western Christian world so deeply.
Orthodox collectively affirm that Christ's body is actually served as food, and it's not just a symbol or only "virtually/metaphorically" there in bread.