@jeeprs,
Well most people will say 'no such thing'. But I am not so sure. After all, we are now told that the vacuum of interstellar space is seething with energy, and the universe is thought to consist mainly of some form of energy/matter which we can't even conceive of, let alone measure. I think many of our ideas of what is possible and what is not may well need to be revised in the future. (That said, I am not really into the 'gee whiz' aspects of yogic phenomenon. I used to work at Reader's Digest, we had books like 'Strange Stories and Amazing Facts' which were full of such things. They don't fascinate me, in that sense.)
Incidentally, on a somewhat similar topic, I was contemplating how the meaning of the word 'skeptic' has changed. Originally skepticism meant 'suspension of judgement'. The skeptics had much in common with the Stoics and the Cynics, all of whom were engaged in an attempt to find a state of 'ataraxia' or 'apathea' beyond the turmoil and flux of ordinary worldly life. In other words, it was a spiritual movement. Scholars believe that Pyrrho, one of the founders of skepticism, was directly influenced by Mahayana Buddhism and in particular the Madhyamika (Middle Way) school which is a skeptical philosophy (See
The Shape of Ancient Thought by Thomas McEvilly.)
Scientific skepticism is completely different. It is based on an attitude of metaphysical naturalism. It is not skeptical at all in the philosophical sense, but rather is concerned to defend 'science' against what it perceives as 'supernaturalism'. That, however, is very much the product of the European Enlightenment, and some very specific notions of what is natural, and what is not. At this point, we still don't know enough about nature to know what is 'super' to it, in my view.