Yes. For 99.9% of replications you won’t need fake/fill lights.
I believe most photos aren’t taken by real photographers, so that’s why fill lights are not needed for the overwhelming majority of replications. But it’s not just that, Filmic is supposed to be better than real eyes at Dynamic Range, so it’s supposed to be much better than a real camera at capturing light.
In my replication above (Cycles on the left, real pic on the right), there are no fill lights, only a SkyTexture (and the lamps above the table, but those almost don’t contribute to the lighting).
My intention is to replicate real life / real eyes. Nobody uses fill lights in your daily routine, because our eyes see really well (they have a great Dynamic Range) and the lighting is already setup nicely in the real world.
As far as I can remember, the Filmic setting introduced in Blender was supposed to replicate that - and even be better than human eyes at Dynamic Range. Because of this, I do not believe fill lights are necessary, as my comparisons show.
In the rare case that a fill light is needed, it’s either because that pic was taken by a photographer that used fill lights in a very specific scene, or because the user didn’t setup the lighting accurately in the scene.
So if you’re using Filmic, you shouldn’t need to use fill lights because the lighting simulation and capture is much better than what photographers can capture with their equipment.
Another example is the wooden kitchen on my website. It was only lit by a window where the environment light was the only thing lighting the scene (no HDRi, not even a SkyTexture, just a default background but white).