Curious interpretative approach.
Actually, not curious at all. And I'm not a Roman Catholic trying to defend this scholar. However, the original Greek New Testament had no chapter or verse numbers, nor even paragraph divisions (nor often even punctuation)...these are all things added by later editors--who weren't necessarily correct in their division of things (as it is not part of the original inspired text). Direct proximity in a text often usually does connect things, or else why would the John and the Holy Spirit have written it this way?
Here's the passage in question, as written, without the added chapter and verse divisions:
Then God’s temple in heaven was opened, and within his temple was seen the ark of his covenant. And there came flashes of lightning, rumblings, peals of thunder, an earthquake and a severe hailstorm. A great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head. She was pregnant and cried out in pain as she was about to give birth. (Rev 11:19-12:1,2)One should not be quick to dismiss observations of the early Church Fathers--they discerned from Scripture and clarified basically all the fundamentals all Christians of all stripes call essential.
One should also not dismiss Old Testament imagery in place in the (historically true) New Testament stories--as the New Testament writers knew the Old Testament like the back of their hand, and expected their readers to as well--and while reconting history, could well recount true events that have eerie Old Testament historic precedents. I think many solid evangelical Protestant scholars would agree with this scholar's take on this...
Did Mary bear Jesus in a similar way that God chose to be especially present in the Ark? Yes. Does that mean we should pray to her, no. Does that mean she deserves our highest respect as a godly woman and the one chosen to be the mother of our Lord? Absolutely.
I tried to make the point here that the claim of the Mary/ark view among the early church fathers is questionable. Many of the works cited are considered "Dubious and Spurious". E.g., regarding the Gregory the Wonderworker quotes, Philip Schaff states, “But even [Alexius Aurelius] Pellicia objects that this is a spurious work.”
I also view the imagery of the woman in the wilderness as not primarily about Mary, but rather it is a picture of the Church. After Christ’s ascension, she is said to be protected for a period of “one thousand two hundred and sixty days.” This harkens back to the timing of the two witnesses in Rev. 11:3. It seems clear that is time period is associated with Christ’s Church. The image here is of the church in the wilderness being nourished by the gospel.
We also see the parallel in imagery between this righteous woman and the woman of Revelation 17. She is described as “that great city which reigns over the kings of the earth.” I believe this is reference to apostate Jerusalem of that day, also called “the great city” in Rev. 11:8. The contrast here would be between the earthly city and the heavenly one (Heb. 12:22ff; Gal. 4:26; Rev. 21:2).