Sure, that would be very plausible. Stocking up a cave with food, keeping a small fire going inside with whatever flammable material is available, eating little and sleeping a lot to make the food last longer...
Not quite the same as the original story, though.
You are doing the same as the_af here: nitpicking over the exact phrasing of the story in order to avoid realistically evaluating its credibility. Anecdotes are not theorems, invalidated by one infidelity. Your objections are pedantic and irrelevant to the author's purpose in relating it.
Furhermore:
> Stocking up a cave with food...
According to the driver, the women would reportedly illegally cross the river to prostitute themselves in China before the winter to obtain rice to survive.
>... keeping a small fire going inside with whatever flammable material is available...
and the nearby land so denuded of firewood that they would otherwise freeze to death.
>...eating little and sleeping a lot to make the food last longer.
Well, yes - that was apparently the point of relating this anecdote. As we can see, the story as presented is close to what you consider plausible, especially as we know there actually was a severe multi-year famine in North Korea not so long ago.
The author posted it in a comment on an article about Neanderthals who might have had the ability, never before observed in humans, to slow their base metabolic rate to withstand extreme cold. And they suggested those North Koreans were likely doing the same.
In my modified version, their body temperature stays within the normal range and they're conserving energy by limiting movement, but their base metabolism stays the same and they still have to eat regularly, i.e. they're not hibernating.
Maybe that's just "nitpicking over the exact phrasing of the story", but it's also the only way in which the story is relevant to TFA.
>And [OP] suggested those North Koreans were likely doing the same. [my emphasis of the weasel word]
So it seems you will read the anecdote literally when doing so allows you to attack its credibility, and you will find an unstated assumption in it if doing so allows you to attack its relevance.
As noted above, the OP merely seems to be suggesting something that other posters have also mentioned: the physical evidence mentioned in the article might have been the result of winter famine, and not definitive evidence of hibernation; furthermore, there may be people alive today, or recently deceased, in whom this physiological damage might be found. I can't say for sure, but OP may be suggesting that they might help with the further studies of this hypothesis.