One approach to answering this question is to use the statistical evidence regarding the Maximum Reported Age at Death (MRAD): https://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v538/n7624/full/nature19793.html#ref14.
The Nature paper says:
To approximate the absolute limit of human lifespan, we modelled the MRAD as a Poisson distribution; we found that the probability of an MRAD exceeding 125 in any given year is less than 1 in 10,000.
This means, that even if that probability held constant for all of human (genus Homo) history (roughly 3 million years), there may be no more than 300 instances of anyone exceeding an age of 125 (assuming that multiple instances of exceeding this age in one year cannot occur, which I think is a reasonable assumption in this case). What are the problems with this approach to answering this question? How can we address them?
Obviously, it would be better to rely on the biological evidence:
What could be the biological causes of this limit to human lifespan? The idea that ageing is a purposeful, programmed series of events that evolved under the direct force of natural selection to cause death has now been all but discredited. Instead, what appears to be a ‘natural limit’ is an inadvertent byproduct of fixed genetic programs for early life events, such as development, growth and reproduction. Limits to the duration of life could well be determined by a set of species-specific, longevity-assurance systems encoded in the genome that counteract these inadvertent byproducts, which are likely to include inherent imperfections in transferring genetic information into cellular function.
However, it is difficult to find an estimation of lifespan based on these factors, if such an estimation exists.
We could also say that an extraordinary claim that yoga would circumvent such factors requires extraordinary evidence, but while this might be a good basis to ignore the claim, it does not refute it.