I have a Guess about what might have happened. I have heard similar things at craft shows, and what they often mean by "not edited" is something like 'no extensive changes' like sky replacements, or huge changes in saturation levels. The reason being that sometimes people construe 'editing' with this isn't a real representation of a natural scene. I've heard people ask "is this Photoshopped or real" (equating Photoshop with Photo illustration)

So rather than give the full explanation of of the RAW conversion process and basic image editing a thousand times, it gets turned into I shoot raw and this is not "EDITED" (using the negative definition of 'editing' many people have)
I certainly don't know that to be the case, but suspect it might be.

The second thing I would mention to "your friend" is that the quality of in camera JPEGs has improved quite a bit over the years and most cameras allow a degree of customization or preset looks (Fujifilm's Velvia Preset comes to mind) that might save her from learning raw conversion if she would like a simpler path to the look she likes.

For arguments sake let’s say you shoot identical photos in RAW and standard mode JPEG on your Canon. You then use your camera’s standard profile in Lightroom and export without any additional processing as a JPEG. Will the made in camera JPEG look any different than the LRC processed JPEG you’ll use for printing or posting on social media? I suspect the answer is no. Obviously, if there’s an issue with your camera’s standard mode processing choices, and you want to override them, you will get the best results with more extreme post-processing using a RAW file. So the real answer is, in the absence of additional post-processing, an in camera JPEG is not any different than an identically processed RAW file. Am I correct?

UHH SOP:
The reader should always beware of any thread title about "A Friend" !!!

As reported from him to her to you, it makes no sense, as youve noted.

It makes great sense if you correct one word. He says the images are not edited.

Clearly they are processed cuz he shoots raw. Now that we know he has a flawed vocabulary, common sense tells us that he really means "not enhanced in post" when he says "not edited".

Sometimes, little things mean a lot !
Just fix that one little word.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Worth noting. Theres some possibility that he means (almost) exactly what he says. In some instances, if you optimize all your SOOC settings you can directly use your "unedited" raw files for printing or display.

Acoarst the pix are not really unedited. They were edited by the raw processor which "respected" the camera settings for style, color, sharpening, etc. Certain raw processors supplied by the camera maker will do that (I dont recall which ones).

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Its also possible the photographer did not say the pix were "unedited". That might be a distortion introduced in your friends relating to you what the photographer had said ... or even by you reporting to us what your friend had told you.

To your specific scenario (LR RAW import, then Camera Standard Profile, then export), this image will be rather different than the JPEG from the camera. The difference is mostly how LR applies default settings to all RAW imports, specifically in the noise reduction and sharpening. LR applies the same defaults to all RAW images from all camera models and without regard to the ISO value of the specific image. Your camera's "standard" profile will have different settings, as well as some different processing of White Balance and probably some auto-toning of the exposure / contrast as occurs in-camera. Your camera actually addresses the specifics of the ISO setting for NR, as well as a different approach to sharpening.

RAW gives you more latitude in editing, because of the exponentially larger amount (bit-depth) of color data in the RAW file. JPEG has plenty of data for editing, but within a narrower 'range' of possible updates before you start getting abnormal / unexpected problems in the color shading.

I shoot RAW almost exclusively. My RAW photos straight out of camera need post processing, no ifs, ands or buts. The RAW file may have more data than the JPEG, but the JPEG has already been processed in camera. If I do not add contrast, adjust the highlights and shadows, etc., then I have a flat, listless image. As an experiment for a friend I shot her in RAW + JPEG; I was able to extract much more detail (like texture in her hair) from the RAW file than was present in the out of camera JPEG.