This analogy about energy from the Earth and the Sun reminds me of Georges Bataille'd writings, Nick Land's Thirst for Annihilation, and Negarestani's Cyclonopedia. Not sure if you've read them, and they're rather pretentious writers, but their ideas might intrigue you if you haven't.

I agree that capitalistic, egoistic progress might be self-destructive and tragic. I've written a number of articles on that point. Your critique seems in line with the Amerindian one, too, and with many spiritual countercultures, including the Christian one that worships a supernatural source of nature. (I recently came across the Native American critique of Old World progress in chapter 2 of Graeber's The Dawn of Everything.)

The problem for me is that your distinction between the Earth and the Sun as sources of energy is only a metaphor that's mooted by philosophical naturalism. That metaphor may have given rise to many of the world's religions, including Gnosticism, which posits false, local gods and a real, transcendent one.

The cosmicist pantheism I talk about unites those two sources of energy, construing all of nature as an outer wilderness, as an inhuman, amoral, indifferent, monstrously self-evolving plenum. So while I share your concerns about capitalism, and while I agree that a critique of secularism might best be based on some viable religious or at least creative perspective, I'd prefer existential pantheism to your implicitly theistic metaphor. But perhaps I've misunderstood what you were saying.