Supernatural isn't a useful concept

[Edwardo Piet]

It is said that a natural law is a codification of an effect which deviates from the random in a consistent, non-random way.  The law of gravity exists because objects depart from the traditional "an object in motion tends to remain in motion" and "an object at rest tends to remain at rest" in consistent and predictable ways.  The paths of moving objects are changed in non-random ways.

If this is the hallmark of natural law, then perhaps the supernatural is that which deviates from randomness or natural law in inconsistent but non-random ways.  So a phenomena which deviated from the consistency of natural law only under certain, repeatable circumstances, might be considered supernatural.  For example, a person [allegedly] making a sphere levitate.  It would be inconsistent with the way natural law ordinarily affects the sphere.  The sticky wicket in all this is attributing cause.  How do we verify that the person is actually causing the sphere to levitate as opposed to some other unknown cause.  If the effect is inconsistent with natural law, differentiating between the supernatural and the unexplained seems impossible in principle.  The inconsistency of the effect supercedes our ability to find a natural law to cover the phenomena.

Very interesting thoughts.

Is it really worthy of the label "supernatural" though? Maybe "transnatural" as in transcending or going beyond the way nature usually is?

I mean... because supposedly "supernatural" applies to that which is not part of nature...

...and I personally think that what you described is nature behaving extraordinarily idiosyncratically.