It's a different sense of "disorder" - not "disorder in nature," but rather a medical disorder. Sleep paralysis and hypnic jerk are disorders not because they violate natural law, but because they may be undesired and unusual. An "out of body experience" is not a disorder in this sense, because it is not undesired.
Science does not have any problem accounting for these phenomena as the result of neural activity. They are not "disorder in nature."
However, let's ignore the examples and just ask whether disorder in nature is supernatural. Suppose there is some phenomenon that seems to defy science - say that sometimes bricks randomly levitate for no apparent reason. This could be described as "disorder in nature" because the known laws of nature don't account for it. Would we call this supernatural?
At first, of course we would. But then suppose that scientists work out the reason for the levitating bricks - they discover the mumble-magnetomorphic-dynablast field whose equations can be written down, which fully account for the levitating bricks. Then we would say that the bricks are a natural phenomenon, and also no longer "disorder."
So what we call "natural" or "ordered" really depends on whether we can trace the cause and effect as the result of some governing principles. Science can study whatever is ordered - and if it does not appear ordered at first, perhaps science simply hasn't figured it out yet, and will eventually.
Besides that we might call something "supernatural" if it has traditionally been called so. Suppose for the sake of argument that ghosts, ESP, souls, and deities are real. And suppose that scientists investigate these phenomena and determine that there are definite laws governing them; they do not act at random or with disorder. We might still call them "supernatural" because they are traditionally so, or we might call them "natural" because they have been explained, according to personal preference.
