Honestly, I don't know where to start. Your repeated (mis)interpretation of animism and conflation of things like religion and its underlying episteme leads you to fallacies such as “[ancient’s] worldviews were in one way or another anthropocentric”, when in fact it was only the interpretation that may seem to some as anthropocentric. And even then it would be crazy to think that “we were once naïve mammals that deemed themselves central to all being” — animism by its very definition, i.e. due to knowledge of interconnectedness of phenomena, cannot be (and in fact, indeed, is not) anthropocentric in terms of actual worldview. And that’s just one example. Thus, if you had proper historical context, you would know that your underlying assumptions, at least in regard to development of worldviews and rise of religions, are based on incorrect generalizations.

As I said many times before, I get why you think that the answer to universe and everything is “existentialism tempered with cosmicism” (well, beside 42 of course). But I would say, it’s merely understandable, not inevitable, and certainly not best. After all, your story is merely another one of all those other stories you criticize (which is another thing that, I’m afraid, escapes you).

As I see it, animism (an in extension nonduality) and science (in general) don’t contradict each other. By definition they cannot — they investigate the same reality. On the other hand, the various stories people tell about each of these topics is a different can of worms. So, I assume, you don’t see subjective experience as a valid means to know. Which is rather strange, because all you ever knew were subjective experiences.