Struggling, Illusion?  That pecking at tiny points while ignoring the argument suggests so.

People are part of nature.  We are organic.  We are animals.  Our religions (all of them) are natural.

"People need structure"?  Spoken by a true (aspiring) leader!  People may or may not need structure (which is in any case different from hierarchy).  At any rate, there are people whose coherent, intelligent arguments in favour of various forms of anarchism, concensus or co-operation appeal to me more than your assumption against them.  Consider the Quakers, for example, any of whom is superior to you, in your terms.

You say Buddha wasn't a 'super-being' - then claim he rose above ordinary mortals.  If you're going to use words to mean whatever you want them to mean whenever you use them then there is very little point continuing this.

We may or may not be subservient to the rules of nature - aren't you arguing with yourself here?  That tends to happen when you abandon an unclear and ill-thought-out position in favour of desperately trying to pick holes in the arguments of another.

Vedanta is wide open to interpretation, but the most common schools identify 'god' as Vishnu or Krishna (a personification of the divine force).

Priests of all faiths and persuasions have kept the peasant classes underfoot everywhere throughout history.  Peasants have starved (and continue to starve) all over the world while the priestly classes sat in their lavish temples living it up on sacrifices and tithes.  This is not restricted to the monotheistic traditions.