Has The Supernatural Hypothesis Failed?

Formation of a hypothesis is necessary to science. But science is not necessary to forming a hypothesis.
For example, I can make a hypothesis -- that's a potentially valid explanation of an observed phenomenon -- to explain gravity involving the use of nanoscopic fairies who live in all matter and have different strengths and can magically extend their arms and bodies. I am forming a hypothesis, and yet it is supernatural.
You appear to be trying to argue that forming a hypothesis occurs if and only if one is performing science (def: following the scientific method), and that a supernatural explanation cannot be a hypothesis. Please correct me if I am wrong on either point.

---

Likewise with my G-fairies, many hypotheses have been formed using the supernatural as their premise. These hypotheses have invariably never been validated, and many have been superseded with scientific hypotheses. Whether one considers specific examples of the supernatural hypothesis, or the idea of them in general, they have failed utterly throughout history.

Those are indeed supernatural claims. They invoke a supernatural explanation for some aspect of the universe.In the case of a young earth, a person is invoking God to explain away the amazingly precise relations between different independent dating methods that indicate an old earth.
In the case of a global flood, a person is invoking God to explain away the evidence that a global flood did not happen.
In the case of lightning caused by a deity, the use of a deity in the explanation makes it inherently supernatural. This also applies to the first two cases.
In the case of the evil spirits hypothesis of disease, we are invoking a supernatual entity to explain an aspect of biological life.It is not the fact that these attempt to explain the universe. It is the fact that they do so using or involving a supernatural entity which makes them supernatural.
So yes, these are supernatural claims. And yes, they are also wrong. But those two properties are not related.