Possible? Yes. Likely? Not at all.
To perform a zero knowledge proof, you’d have to have structured data to support the claim, which most whistleblowers would not have. If a whistleblower already had the hard evidence in hand, e.g., serial numbers and timestamps, they could have just provided those anonymously, and someone could follow up. The problem is, you can’t always get a copy of the hard evidence without revealing your intent to the employer, or at least, other employees.
Presumably most whistleblowers are making unsubstantiated claims that something happened, or maybe with light evidence. Based on who they are, a journalist or investigator may then elect to follow up and dig up the hard evidence to support the claim. This requires revealing your name and position/relationship to at least one person. Rarely, they would be willing to put themselves out there to provide an affidavit under oath, which itself is not enough to pursue criminal charges (though it could help build a case around intent or willful neglect, or help support a warrant or discovery).
It’s illegal, but not unheard of, to try to force journalists to reveal their sources, but the same protections are not universally in place if you reported a finding to a company’s internal affairs, for example. But unlike attorney-client privilege, or shield law protections, the risk in signing an affidavit is, as we’ve seen in recent US trials, that records will not stay sealed, and your name will be revealed to the defense and/or public.