For starters, the phrase "not for everyone" is manipulative. You can apply it to practically anything. Is any work at all for everyone? Are reading books or wearing pants for everyone? Questioning if something is for everyone will rarely give you a positive answer because very few things if any are equally applicable to all of us. Even life and death may not be, so this is not what they try to say.
They try to say remote is not for you. They try to prove that you are not good enough or it's not yours a priori. Like winning a gold Olympic medal or being smart.
I find it terribly wrong to tell people they are not capable of something. Even if they aren't at this exact moment.
Italian criminologist Cesare Lombroso had a theory that people are born as criminals, and we can identify them based on the set of physical characteristics, such as sloping forehead, long arms, or protruded ears and jaw. Even at the time of the publication in the late 19th century, the theory was quite questionable and eventually proven to be wrong in favour of social roots of crime.
If telecommuting is not for everyone (biff!, bam!, pow!), can we apply the theory here and say there are people who were born for remote work?
It's hard to believe that in 2020 someone still questions the advantages of working from home and presents those as disadvantages. Moreover, there are ridiculous attempts to trick you into thinking that remote work can be not for you. Please don't take these claims seriously.