In a sense, the relevant question is not whether we can identify the correct explanation for how the image came about but whether we can think of any explanations, correct or incorrect, which are more plausible than some kind of magical energy happening.

Any of these are possible candidates of varying levels of probability:

1. Condensation on the lens
2. Some other mark on the lens
3. Some sort of illusion created by the way that the light was shining on the camera.
4. Post-doctoring of the image in Photoshop (we only have one person's say so that it's unedited, but then we've no overwhelming reason to suppose she's lying)
5. Some sort of error in the development of the photo if it was from a film camera.

Or any number of other things. We have very little data - only a photo and a short statement about it. Without any more data there's no real way at getting at the 'true' explanation. We may as well say that the photo had a glass of milk spilt on it which left a funny mark, for all we know better at the moment. We just don't have the information to support or rule out such a claim.

But

While the condensation idea might seem like the most probable candidate, we shouldn't feel obliged to accept it outright especially when presented with so little information. Nor do we need to in order to argue logically: we can at least say that every one of those possible explanations above plus ones that we haven't thought of are hugely more plausible than some sort of 'magical' answer. That's because we can get at those answers in a rational, verifiable way; we can follow a logical path to see how those natural explanations may and frequently do happen in the real world.

In a sense, the relevant question is not whether we can identify the correct explanation for how the image came about but whether we can think of any explanations, correct or incorrect, which are more plausible than some kind of magical energy happening.

Any of these are possible candidates of varying levels of probability:

1. Condensation on the lens
2. Some other mark on the lens
3. Some sort of illusion created by the way that the light was shining on the camera.
4. Post-doctoring of the image in Photoshop (we only have one person's say so that it's unedited, but then we've no overwhelming reason to suppose she's lying)
5. Some sort of error in the development of the photo if it was from a film camera.

Or any number of other things. We have very little data - only a photo and a short statement about it. Without any more data there's no real way at getting at the 'true' explanation. We may as well say that the photo had a glass of milk spilt on it which left a funny mark, for all we know better at the moment. We just don't have the information to support or rule out such a claim.

But we can at least say that every one of those possible explanations above plus ones that we haven't thought of are hugely more plausible than some sort of 'magical' answer because we can get at those answers in a rational, verifiable way; we can follow a logical path to see how those natural explanations may and frequently do happen in the real world.