No, you wouldn't be ecstatic at all. Even if hard evidence existed for anomalous interpretations of reality - which it does, in forgotten corners of academia [1] - you'd be utterly dismissive of it. You'd spend the first part of your answer debunking it with some untested pseudo-explanations, and the rest of your answer complaining that it hadn't been replicated.
And you wouldn't even notice the evidence linked to in an article like this one which suggests the effects can't simply be waved away as placebo.
Then you'd end with a restatement of the "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" saw and would retreat happy and contented that you had once again vanquished the evil dragon of irrationality with your objectively informed skepticism.
Unfortunately none of this is even remotely scientific, except in a bandwagon cargo cult sense.
Science is not about protecting the tribe against unacceptably dissident world views, but about dealing calmly and objectively with things that actually happen - especially if you don't understand them. It's not about trying to persuade yourself that they don't happen, because they can't possibly, because you already know for sure what's possible and what isn't with unshakeable 100% confidence, and therefore there can't possibly be anything to explain. QED.
Please don't fall into ad hominem attacks. I don't think it helps the conversation here.
I took a look at the study linked and I could see some problems in experiment design. There are so many confounding factors that aren't controlled for.
[edit: An experiment like this would have to be pretty big in scope and try to randomise for control groups accordingly. I personally would like to see that to see what's genuinely resulting in these effects, no matter what it is. You might not believe that though, which is your own bias.]
And you wouldn't even notice the evidence linked to in an article like this one which suggests the effects can't simply be waved away as placebo.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31638407
Then you'd end with a restatement of the "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" saw and would retreat happy and contented that you had once again vanquished the evil dragon of irrationality with your objectively informed skepticism.
Unfortunately none of this is even remotely scientific, except in a bandwagon cargo cult sense.
Science is not about protecting the tribe against unacceptably dissident world views, but about dealing calmly and objectively with things that actually happen - especially if you don't understand them. It's not about trying to persuade yourself that they don't happen, because they can't possibly, because you already know for sure what's possible and what isn't with unshakeable 100% confidence, and therefore there can't possibly be anything to explain. QED.
[1] https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/02/there-is-...