It would suggest that he wrote subversively. So did lots of others, by this standard of evidence. Pseudonyms would be necessary for all Elizabethan and Jacobean dramatists, if their work is measured for potential subversion. Her argument rests on our lack of evidence of Donne's early writings. This is vague and disingenuous.
Modern scholars believe that there is no way of dating most of Donne's secular verse.
However, the assumption has almost always been that Donne's secular poetry preceded his ordination at St. Paul's in 1615. What modern scholars believe is that too great a dichotomy between early, secular Donne and late, religious Donne shouldn't be assumed, as it leads to generalisations about the work. That is almost all we know. Demorest's selective mis-quotation here is culpable, as the full text weakens her argument. It is ironic that the anti-Stratfordian movement should continue its assaults, when it is considered that most of literary criticism has been trying to get rid of the notion of an 'author' for some time.