There's a tremendous amount to unpack in the West's co-option of other belief systems. I haven't had my coffee or tea yet, but a couple of poorly structured thoughts:
I've complained previously about encountering "mindfulness" practices in anxiety treatment materials distributed by my HMO (Kaiser). It's deeply weird to see religious practices deployed in this context.
This is partly driven by a sizable tendency within social sciences to examine and embrace meditative practices and related stuff as a friendly object of study in order to legitimize it, often led by western converts. It's not an exclusively western thing by any means, however; such research (of widely varying quality) is conducted all over the world. And even in the west it's often related to activity of new religious movement/cult groups that originate abroad. (The transcendental meditation folks, for example, fund a lot of research.)
Part of the route to preventing cooption/cultural appropriation by the corporate world would be to combat these attempts to scientifically or, often, psuedo-scientifically, legitimize and endorse eastern and/or new age religious practices. There's a direct pipleine from bad social science to managerial class self-help books etc.
Somewhat related to the science thing is the general vibe that Buddhism has as the good religion for nice people. It is perceived as a non-violent, and therefore inoffensive, belief system. This is not true; no belief system is inherently non-violent, regardless of tenets. Buddhism can be and has been used to justify genocide, notably within the last decade. Any time a belief system can achieve enough popularity to become a major cultural and political player, it will be stained with atrocities.
But Buddhism feels peaceful to the type of person who is vaguely aware that Christianity has historic associations with colonialism, crusade, and inquisition. And so part of the problem of making it more resistant to being co-opted is that we have to push back against the idea that it's somehow more nice, more open, more universal than other faiths.
Not Buddhism, but a related phenomenon: one of the few topics on which you can get me to agree with Christian nationalists is that we should not teach yoga to kids in public schools. Despite having been stripped of almost all specific ideas and beliefs, it's a religious practice. If you used rosaries for counting exercises to teach kids math, it would still be a problem if you never mentioned what the rosary is originally for. But it's hard to frame that position without sounding like you agree with the nationalists for their reasons, which are xenophobic.
I don't care what Taylor Swift has to say about karma, or anything. But for what it's worth, though, it's weird to position karma as a specifically Buddhist concept; it's not. Would be similar to Christians insisting that stuff in the tanakh is specifically Christian.
And more generally, expecting popular culture to have a coherent or accurate grasp on theological or philosophical concepts would be a losing bet in almost all cases. The average Western pop culture invocation of the concept of, say, heaven, bears scarcely any more resemblance to actual Christian soteriology or cosmology. The beliefs of laity and secular people, i.e., the vast majority of all believers, are 99.9% vibes.
On a similar note, I haven't personally done the homework on metaphors of sexual ecstasy in Buddhism, but I'm confident you could easily find textural support if you wanted to. Religion is horny. But that's really neither here nor there in re: erotica to be honest. It's not like there's a significant theological context to someone shouting "oh god" during a sex scene.
(Also, in order to make things fair, we should all watch more anime so that we can see people being absolutely unhinged in co-opting Christian symbolism and ideas in the weirdest, horniest ways possible.)
Off topic, karma is a dogshit philosophical concept, and karma taken together with reincarnation is among the most politically regressive religious concepts imaginable, since it defers all concepts of justice and encourages the individual to turn inward for moral redress rather than to engage in the public sphere. (This isn't the only way to read these ideas, but I think it is a fair reading of them on their face and as they are used in much of both Hinduism and Buddhism. It's in many ways a more extreme version of the Christian concept that judgment is deferred to the end times or afterlife.)
This does relate to the popularity of Buddhism and of the new age generally among certain segments of the poltiical right. That inward turn towards the self (or non-self) is very appealing to a type of self-centered personality who wants a reason to not look at the consequences of their actions in the world. (Not defending those douchebags, but the new age right is not a coincidence or accident.)