There is no evidence other than the publications of Dr. Eike Pies that this person existed in the first place and secondly is the illegitimate daughter of Johann Philipp Boos zu Waldeck.
Dr. Pies "claims" this relationship on assumptions (where the Elisabeth, the wife of Diederich Pies is a Godparent on a single occasion very late in her life) and otherwise just writes that the church book of the castle Waldeck was lost and therefore no written proof longer exist. The fact that they had property close by with the Knight family of von Waldeck and Montfort also isn't much evidence for an illegitimate relationship as in those times first of all only male descendants would inherit property and if it comes to favours, only male illegitimate would maybe get some benefit from their birth fathers.
By genealogical standards this isn't enough evidence. I refer you to this excellent article which explains what kind of assumptions are acceptable and which aren't: https://www.legacytree.com/blog/what-constitutes-genealogical-proof
"The challenge is to avoid making what seems like an appropriate assumption but is really based on faulty reasoning or bias."
I also refer you to this article: https://www.familysearch.org/wiki/en/Evaluate_the_Evidence
Use the five elements of the Genealogical Proof Standard as a guide to help improve the quality of your research, evaluation of the evidence, and reasoning:
1) Reasonably exhaustive research has been conducted.
2) Each statement of fact has a complete and accurate source citation.
3) The evidence is reliable and has been skillfully correlated and interpreted.
4) Any contradictory evidence has been resolved.
5) The conclusion has been soundly reasoned.
Near the end of research on especially controversial connections or significant families, compose a "proof statement" that explains how you reached your conclusions. Using the Genealogical Proof Standard will significantly increase the likelihood that your genealogical conclusions reflect what really happened.
Any proof statement is subject to re-evaluation when new evidence arises.
