If and it's a big if, the woman had a means of ascertaining this information without being told it, something unusual and interesting was going on. It's incumbent on the scientific community to provide an explanation other than 'it's impossible' or demean it as occluded and irrational.
I agree
So what is needed is a proper double-blind trial, with prior-established statistical power.
This isn't science trying to discredit, it is a logical approach t ascertaining whether occurence is better than chance.
And when this is done, the anecdotes evaporate and what is left moves into the corpus of knowledge. This is how understanding develops, by testing, and by subsequent modification of world model when indicated.
The problem in the case you cite is that this scenario has popped up so often, has been investigated and has found not to stand up. Maybe this time is different, maybe, and if it is then the world will change.
But the other thing to consider is the unicorn question*. The context. If there is a corpus of knowledge, a functional and rational world-model, then something which is not in conflict with that doesn't require a paradigm shift. If the acceptance of something requires our accepted worls model to be thrown out then you can expect that it will be subject to a great deal of scrutiny.
*If I tell you there's a horse in my garden you night not be too surprised, if you knew I lived in the country. If I told you it was a unicorn you might seek clarification, at the very least
