Seems like another instance of a longer historic theme that has been picked up recently by the sea steading libertarian crowd, and now network states.
Imo, the secular and by extension libertarian mentality is just another anti-ethos defined by what it opposes, and then they think if they just criticize harder with more words, this negative thing that defines them will somehow yeild.
Rhetorically, what is the difference between these ideas and ones that have actually created de-facto network states, global networks, and even historically significant civilizations like America? The network states that I know of still exist today are the Catholic Church, the Church of England, Islam, Hinduism, and Judaism, and to a much lesser extent (but as a great example of an intentional network whose principles underpin modern western civilization) Freemasonry, and what they all have in common is they are based on a single very simple idea that scales. They aren't secular, which means they don't have to re-invent the wheel on a principle to underpin their laws and customs.
This isn't advocacy for theism necessarily, but when you look at the gallons of ink spilled on "new" ideas, they're all talking around the elephant in the room and substituting complex exeptions for a central scalable ethos. We (and especially crypto libertarian people) all know that complex rules yield stupid behavior. When I read these discussions of manifestos, what I can't help but conclude is that their secularism is the self-selected and self-sabotaging constraint. With the exception of communism, the world does not tolerate atheistic global powers or networks for very long. There's a kind of alchemy to the new crypto versions of old ideas where they think they can create neutral systems of rules and incentives that resist human corruption and solve the problem of Evil. It's the promise of lead into gold. The approach of the religious ones didn't try solve Evil at all (other than their exemplary failures), but they did provide a path for people to become both good and worthy, and to prevail.
I'd suggest that the people writing these elaborate perscriptions for breakaway societies just try and consider a second experimental draft of them using a theistic (or even deistic) axiom and then compare the results. The secular or atheistic requirement for ideas about new societies is the "the floor is lava" constraint of our time, and it produces just as many silly contortions and self-imposed struggles. If they try it again without pretending the floor is lava, I think they will have more success and provide something more valuable.