1. Animism is dualistic. There are also animists that go without any notion of divinity (e.g. Piraha). Not all animistic societies have shamans, and "shamanic magic to negotiate with the spirits" is more a western (and New Age) notion of how things operate in said societies (most of which are already “westernized” and earn their living by culture tourism — go figure).

2. Who are the mystics you mention? Because there's no such "spiritual" tradition. And if by mystics you mean Yogis, Sadhus, Advaitins, Taoists, etc., they came a lot later (several tens of thousands of years).

3. In addition to pantheism (which may or may not be dualistic — depends on a particular strain) you also have e.g. panentheism or panpsychism (which is however again dualistic). But that's not the point — the first traces of pantheism go back to ancient Greece (again a lot later).

4. Polytheism and rise of large sedentary societies is not causal. See Indus Valley Civilization or Catalhoyuk. What is causal is presence of polytheism and social hierarchy. It's also not true that polytheism makes the "wilderness ... perceived no longer as divine" — see People of the Longhouse.

5. Theism (and Deism) as you described it in the section "Solitary Divinity" is neither central nor exclusive to monotheism. It is central only to the propagandistic manipulation, no matter the religious ideology.

6. Religions contradict each other only to someone who has no clue what the respective religions are talking about at their (misused) core.

7. There is no problem of evil, because there’s no evil. There are only actions, their consequences, and thus responsibility.

8. Nature is indifferent to your welfare exactly as is game board indifferent to the game that's played on it.

9. Philosophical naturalist can be exactly as hubristic as any fundamentalist religious nut. It's about a particular person, their predispositions and primal (and social) biases, as also your regular diatribes attest.

10. You may be lost, horrified, and aesthetically awestruck (or consider universe as awful), but that says nothing about reality. It merely describes your reaction to it.

Thus neither your timeline nor your understanding of religion (and its evolution) is based in actual reality. Jeez, and you claim to have a PhD in philosophy :facepalm: But the more tragic thing are the folks who uncritically swallow your pseudoscientific BS hook, line, and sinker.