I use wildlife cameras that illuminate with infra-red LEDs and very often I have suspected some animals can detect the light. Look at this bunny, he knows the score. So I'm not scoffing at the OP's claim, because just as people have differing hearing ranges, why shouldn't some have greater optical sensitivity at the infra-red end of the spectrum?
Yes, different species have different sensitivities. Nocturnal animals will tend to have greater infra-red sensitivity, as it allows them to detect warm (living) objects in the dark - the very same capability you're using as a night photographer.
For a human, extended IR sensitivity falls into the range of genetic mutation. We evolved our particular vision abilities to suit our environment and needs - "seeing" heat is not necessarily beneficial to a species that lives/hunts/gathers in daylight, as using an IR camera at noontime on a hot day in a tropical zone will demonstrate.
As to "differing" hearing ranges... There is an upper limit on our ability to sense sound, based on the physical properties of our ears - the diameter and thickness of the tympanum, properties of the cell walls, etc. Most of the variability in human hearing has to do with damage that reduces our abilities rather than superior in-bred capabilities. Add to that sensory training that heightens our awareness of what we are hearing (or seeing, for that matter). I spent about 25 years in audio engineering (music and broadcasting). I can cite many examples of aging professional musicians with measured hearing loss who were able to detect fine nuances that less-well-trained people with "normal" hearing could not detect. Although their ability to detect those nuances was diminished, they were still able to recognize them and had the ability to place them in the proper perspective (for example, not boosting higher frequencies beyond what a person with "normal" hearing would find pleasant). This is a classic example of the mind compensating for the body's weaknesses.
As a one-off occurrence, this incident for the OP is not likely to be related to an in-bred ability to sense IR. If it was in-bred, there would be many other incidents involving not only the iPhone but a wide range of other IR-generating items like TV remote controls, alarm trip-beams, and the like.
We have a tendency to confuse correlation with causality. Correlation is only the first step towards determining causality. There are more steps needed to narrow down the actual cause.
