Not so much.
The Gnostics were extremely varied, but one of the few things most of them had in common was a belief that the physical world of matter was utterly corrupt and that to be holy one must withdraw from this world as much as possible.
This meant, at least for the leaders, celibacy and asceticism.
This is not, to put it mildly, a popular POV in the modern western world.
>>Professor King, along with Princeton’s Elaine Pagels<<
Typical angry lesbians from the Ivy League whose adgenda coincides with the progressive/liberal media? Who would’a thunk it?
Grrr!
Øbama voters...
The belief that the material world is evil is very much in tune with modern "spirituality," particularly if ritual sexual practice replaces celibacy in the ascetic. The rationale for that approach is that sex is a transcendent spiritual act which, correctly used, is integral to overcoming the material.
This is the essence of the heresy propounded in Holy Blood, Holy Grail and stolen so shamelessly by Dan Brown. Its appeal is clearly demonstrated by the publishing success of the original, and of the plagiarist DaVinci Code. It's no sillier than the belief that anything created by God could be intrinsically evil, or that God would allow the material world to be created by an evil demiurge (among many Gnostic variations.)
If you want to object that this is not "original" Gnosticism, I would say that historically I'm not sure that's true; there are, as you observe, many variations of this heresy. But even if I stipulate to the hypothetical that it isn't originalist Gnosticism, it is very much in keeping with the modern, buffet approach to "spirituality," maintaining that materialism is evil -- except for the fun parts.