My scanner only does 120 as well, I scan 4x5 in two halves and then use panorama merge in Light room to join them together, as long as you use the same scanner settings for both halves it works fine. The other alternative is to photograph the negative with a digital camera, as long as you get the back lighting even this also works.
Well that would be under a light in a dark room (even a darkroom) . Need a nice diffuse light source so that the negative is evenly illuminated and one that switches on and off cleanly - CFL bulbs and LEDs do have afterglow. You would also need some form of safelight to handle paper and make sure negative and paper aligned and then to find the developing trays. Way Way back they did have POP (printing out paper) that you could handle in just subdued light and then expose in sunlight, did not need developing only fixing.
I'd give a probable yes, at least to the in theory part - with no darkroom needed. Film, if left in the light long enough, will darken. If you have a 35mm leader, try leaving it on a window cill with part covered (say with a coin). After a few days/weeks, you should see the difference. I've tried it with film, but never paper, but in theory it should work.
The big proviso is that the timescale would be impractical at a guess.
My assumption was based on the "lit room" part, which hardly fits a dark room; however, if I were to make a bet, it would be that he did mean a conventional contact print, which would (nowadays) require a darkroom. When contact printing was more the norm, and enlarging less common, printing papers didn't need to be as sensitive; the light from an enlarger is cut down by the lens, after all. The contact printing papers then available didn't need a safelight. My first contact prints were made on a landing, using a low powered nightlight (basically a torch bulb) for a safelight, and processed in saucers. So, wind back the clock to the late 1950s, and I think you could get away without a safelight.