Mark Singleton wrote that everyone misunderstood his argument. It’s not that Yoga is Scandinavian, it’s that a bunch of modern asana isn’t all that old. Because westerners really only have encountered the Krishnamacharya (through Iyenger and Jois) and Ghosh (through Bikram) practices, they think of yoga as a whole to be only asana, and always including the standing postures. Some of those standing postures look like western gymnastic practices.

Asana is only one specific part of the entire practice. It’s a good beginning point. But it’s also very clear from texts like Hatha Yoga Pradipika, Vasistha Samhita, Patanjali Yoga Sutras, Vajrayana Buddhist yoga texts, and others that yoga definitely isn’t a Scandinavian invention.

This is a bizarre theory. The Bhagavad Gita, which is quite ancient, describes Yoga in great detail, especially Chapter 6, for example [1]. Not to mention Yoga Sutras of Patanjali [2].

Of course, modern Hatha Yoga might have some new poses. But the practice of Yoga itself is quite old, and has been prevalent in India for a long time. (I am not commenting on place of origin, since I am not an expert.)

[1] https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/gita/bg06.htm

[2] https://sacred-texts.com/hin/yogasutr.htm

Note that the article is not arguing that yoga isn't ancient at all, but that yoga in the form "exported" to the west refers to a practice that is a distinct form of physical exercise that really is separate from traditional yoga, and that the new form borrows a lot from Scandinavian gymnastics.

It's not saying there aren't physical aspects to traditional yoga either, just that the physical practices of traditional yoga didn't fit the needs of the people who pushed the "new" poses.