I don't think I'm projecting or confusing anything here. As I say at the beginning of the article, "The Eastern religions are more upfront about this theological nightmare, the Western ones more confused." So I'm saying that all religions have esoteric and exoteric theologies, and that the esoteric ones are superior by definition because they're meant for the intellectual insiders, for those with more sophisticated philosophies. Exoteric theology is childlike in its attachment to literalistic doctrines which are all literally (and palpably) false. Esoteric theologies typically take myths to be metaphorical and to have psychological, psychedelic, or mystical meanings.

But the esoteric theology I talk about in this article is implicit, I argue, in most religions, including the Eastern monistic ones. Any religion which posits a single, conscious ultimate reality raises the question of whether that reality is best thought of in Lovecraftian, cosmicist terms. How could such a supreme being be remotely sane, let alone benevolent, loving, etc?

Sure, you can agree with the mystics that we can't say anything terribly meaningful about that transcendent reality. But even the Eastern religions have scriptures, so they've hardly kept quiet about it. And many of those scriptures are esoteric and philosophical, especially compared to the Western doggerel. The Upanishads, for example, practically imply what I'm saying here about the nightmare of God. God escapes his oneness to experience himself (Brahman) as a multiplicity. I'm simply giving a cosmicist spin on that more sophisticated way of looking at the relation between God and material "Creation."

Whether my interpretation is a "degrading parody" depends on whether the originals are worthy of greater respect, assuming the original myths conflict with my cosmicist theology. So you're just begging the question there.