If the word "Hindu" is deemed too religious and only "Sanātana Dharma" is used without sufficient explanation it is already evident how the Western "Spiritual But Not Religious" (SBNR for short) movement would eagerly appropriate this term.
As they are allergic to the "H" word (Hindu) due to the idea that it is a "religion" like all the others, and therefore it is "bad," they like the term to finally have a way to re- contextualize the other things which have been taken on from Hindu spirituality such as Yoga, Ayurveda, etc.
Through ill-informed means, the movement will narrow down Sanātana Dharma to a more limited concept, like how Yoga has become limited to āsana in the sense of physical exercise - redefined that to fit in their own concepts or commercial interests.
On social media and mainstream media sites, there is evidence of a very discerning breed who seem to have an allergy to being associated with 'Hinduism' - consigning it to an equivalence with other religions - irrespective of a significant difference between the montheistic ones, with their dogmatic approach in a single way to salvation.
It is a rather blinkered or knee-jerk reaction to 'religion' in that it ignores the fact that there is no vacuum - there is always an implicit or explicit framework [communism, capitalism, atheism etc etc] each with its own dissonances.
And yet at the same time SBNRs are happy to eat of the fruits of a religion like Hinduism - Ayurveda, meditation, yoga etc while eschewing any reference to such roots.
As someone put it ''Spiritual But Not Religious is like saying - " "I love orgasm but I don't believe in sex."
or more mildly but equally pointedly : " I like fruits but I don't need roots.
