J,C. - By entitling her book The Widow'sMight, it is obvious that Cherie Brown was making an ironic allusion to Jesus' parable of the widow's mite. In other words, she was making a pun. She was punning on the two words, which are homophones; they are two different words, with different spellings and different meanings. Two other pairs of homophones are flour/flower and for/four. Come to think of it, there is also pear/pair and root/route. You can't write here when you mean hear. And it would be a mistake to confuse they're [a contraction of "they are"] with their [a possessive adjective] or there [an adverb denoting location or spatial position].
There are, in fact, many homophonic pairings in English. The word, homophone, is comprised of the Greek prefix - homo - meaning "the same," and phone, which means "sound" [a telephone is a device which enables you to hear "sounds" from "afar" - tele. The Greek word, phone, emphasizes that, in regard to homophones, the crucial issue is sound. In spoken spoken speech - in oral conversation/discourse - there is no difference in the way homophones are pronounced. But, let's imagine a situation in which a buxom woman walks by holding a certain piece of delcious-looking fruit. Someone might then exclaim - "Man, she has a nice..." How do I finish this written sentence? With which written word do I finish it? What do I write now, pair or pear? In spoken speech, it doesn't matter which one I have in mind as long as I am correct in my pronunciation. In writing, - under normal circumstances - a person is forced to choose one word of the two in homophonic pairings, to the exclusion of the other. In certain circumstances, however, it is possible for a clever person to "have it both ways." He or she is able to conflate or combine the denotations of both words in the pair. This is what Brown did in the title of her book.
Brown wrote her book as an inspiration for other women suffering the trauma of widowhood. Brown's book was an inspirational one. In using her title, The Widow'sMight, Brown was engaging in word-play. She knew exactly what she was doing. On the other hand, you, my friend, made an error. You confused the word might with its homophone, mite. I'm willing to bet that there is no English-language version of the Bible which uses the word might in this parable. There is no "alternative common usage" of the two words in "popular culture" [By the way, I am not at all clear on what you mean by "alternative common usage." Are you saying that might is a commonly accepted variant of the word mite? I don't think so. The word might [in its two usages as a noun meaning "strength" or "power,' and as a verb] no doubt appears more commonly [more often] than the word mite, but the two words remain two distinct words.
You write: "I wonder if spelled as 'might' [it????] misconveys