It's interesting to see the author answer with "yes." As I understand, two of the underlying principles presupposed by science as an endeavor are methodological

It's interesting to see the author answer with "yes." As I understand, two of the underlying principles presupposed by science as an endeavor are methodological naturalism and the principle of the uniformity of nature. The second only really needs to be locally true, i.e. maybe fundamental physical laws or constants don't necessarily hold across all time and space, but they hold at least enough to be able to infer them from data, make predictions, and confirm or disconfirm those predictions. Methodological naturalism seems to be more necessary, though. There are at least two forms of supernaturalism I can think of. First is the unmoved mover that lays down fundamental laws and constants, creates the basic ontology of physical substrate, and sets everything in motion, but from that point on, never actively intervenes. This is the God of Deism and the clockwork universe of the early Englightenment. Second is one or more personal forces that are not constrained by the physics of our universe, who actively watch and care what happens, can potentially be pleaded with, and may intervene to cause events that have no physical explanation. This is the more common God or gods of theistic traditions, or spirits of animistic traditions. Each of these would be impossible to investigate scientifically because their actions would need to formulated purely in terms of internal state, or intent and teleological goals. They could not be predicted. These supernatural beings could potentially act in any manner they please, making them impossible to understand purely by observation. Instead, you could at best hope they might explain to you their actions and motivations and that these would not change over time. This is why religion relies upon prophesy and received knowledge or revelation, not observation. On the other hand, it seems the author is here using "supernatural" not to necessarily refer to things that are actually supernatural, but to encompass things like ghosts and remote viewing that may be postulated as supernatural, but assuming they were real, could also have naturalistic explanations we just don't currently have the means to figure out. Science can and even currently tries to investigate things like this. It might be niche, but it happens. Even T1 research universities have departments dedicated to paranomal research, Duke most prominently that I'm aware of among US schools.