Why wouldn't someone reading this simply understand it to be speaking of, well, the ARK itself, meaning the ark of the testimony in the tabernacle/temple? Especially given all the corroborating New Testament theology surrounding Jesus as High Priest in heaven, who continually intercedes for His saints by sprinkling His blood upon the mercyseat (which was between the cherubim on the (ta da!) ark?
This verse is an OT prediction of Jesus' return to heaven, AND that of the ark of the testimony (without the disappearance of which, the Indiana Jones franchise would never have gotten anywhere).
But the question posed by this thread is whether there is any Biblical basis for Catholic and Orthodox Marian theology, and the point I'm trying to make is that we on the more traditional side of things base Marian dogma on this reading of the Scriptures.
My Protetant brothers and sisters might not agree with the exegesis, my only point is that Marian dogma is in fact based on an interpretation - a rather elegant one, IMHO - of Scripture.
In other words, it simply isn't the case that Marian dogma is based on some un-Apostolic "tradition of men" or on the raw legislative claims of the Popes, it is rather based on a reading of the Scriptures from which all else flows.
To repeat, Christians generally look for OT things that foreshadowed the things that were revealed in the NT. The Israel of the OT wasn't just Israel, it rather foreshadowed the Church, for example. Adam wasn't just the first man, who also foreshadowed Christ, the New Man. Manna wasn't just bread from Heaven, it foreshadowed the Christ in the Sacrament. And so forth.
It seems clear to me that in the same way the Ark foreshadowed Mary, and it follows that OT prophecy such as Psalm 38 refer to Mary when they refer to the Ark. This seems clear to me to be at least one sound way to view the Woman in Revelation 11-12, and the references to the physical transport of the Ark to Heaven in Psalm 38.