This is nonsense. It would require new physics to be true, which means the evidence needs to be ironclad, and we're talking a sample size of 10 for a binary outcome, using subjective descriptions that needed to be interpreted by a researcher (probably a grad student). In all likelihood they just got lucky.

I would not be convinced even by an independent repetition of the results, but they don't even have that.

I'm also not sure a paper counts as "published" when the publication is the Journal of Scientific Exploration, which is full of pseudoscience. Take a look at what CSICOP says about them.