Is there even an agreed definition of "supernatural"? When you look closely, it just means: anything that can't (yet) be studied with scientific methods. Which is a slippery thing to build a worldview on, because the moment you can systematically observe something and predict it, it stops being supernatural and becomes natural. Science has spent centuries doing exactly that — converting one "supernatural" force after another into an ordinary one.
Gravity is the tell. We observed it, built a theory that predicts it exactly, and call it a natural force — even though we still can't fully say what it is underneath. "Natural," in practice, seems to mean little more than "predictable and consistent with everything else we know." So here's a thought experiment that I think shows nothing is safely outside science. Suppose a rigorous, controlled study found that the number of people praying for an outcome was reliably proportional to the chance it happened — placebo and the rest accounted for. You could write down an equation for the power of prayer. At that point prayer is a natural force, exactly like gravity: falsifiable, predictive, real, and not yet understood. It's now science's problem.
And from there it forks. Maybe we trace it to some faint physical signal between brains, and prayer reduces to biology, then chemistry, then physics — no deity required. Or maybe we find no physical mechanism at all, in which case science doesn't shrug and quit; it keeps digging, because that's what it does. Either way the "supernatural" didn't stay supernatural. That's the pattern of the last few centuries, and I don't see why the mind — the last big holdout — should be the exception.