I'd like to preface this by saying that I respect the time and effort you took into putting this together.

That having been said, I don't see much religious criticism in Robert Jordan's works. He just used names that would resonate with the readers. There is a tangible theme of the Christian Apocalypse, albeit with roles and names reversed a bit. The Dragon is not the enemy; he is the Saviour. Lucifer (Lews Therin), the Son of the Morning Star (Lord of the Morning) of Isaiah, is not the same as Satan (Shai'tan). By the way, that's exactly one, count them, one use of Islamic forms when talking about these sorts of things. T'armon Gaidon is just a corruption of Armageddon, itself a corruption of Har Megiddo.

However, to say the Tinkers represent Jains simply because of a penchant for non-violence is stretching things. The Tinkers are obviously a borrowing of gypsies from the real world. We don't see Tinker monks walking around naked and sweeping the path before them to make sure they don't crush any bugs in their way. Tinkers don't express a complex philosophy of karma. They're just looking for "the Song".

The names of the Forsaken are mostly removed from their context, and most aren't Biblical in their names at all. Graendal is taken, obviously, from Beowulf and not from Christian tradition. Rahvin isn't Biblical at all - there were some suggestions the name is from Hindu mythology. Lanfear isn't Biblical at all, either, nor is Moghedien, nor is Mesaana, nor is Semirhage, nor is Demandred, nor is Aginor. That's already 8 of 13. The other 5 have little in common with Biblical forebears, too. Ishmael was Abram's son by Hagar, not a demon, so Ishamael's name is not demonic at all. Balthamel is just a Hebrew sounding corruption of another name and so, once again, not the name of any recognised demon. That leaves only THREE out of THIRTEEN that have "demonic" names - Bel'al (Belial), Sammael (Samael) and Asmodean (Asmodeus). Even then, their roles have nothing to do with the historic roles of those demons.

The resulting conclusion is that Jordan just threw some names into a blender and hit "puree". He's not subtly weaving world traditions into a unified whole. He chose names that resonate with us, and he did so intentionally, but he removed those names completely from any meaning they might have for us.

Maybe I'm missing something, but where did Sammael create Lilith in the Wheel of Time? Saying that Lanfear has "echoes" of that story forces you to twist the facts, cherry-pick the parts of the story that are convenient and throw the rest away. At that point, you're just engaging in free association and have devolved the discussion to the level of, "Well, Lanfear went as Selene, and that means 'moon', so she's obviously an archetype of a lunar deity". You can then run with that ad nauseam to come up with all sorts of completely useless information to pick and choose from about Lanfear.

As someone who has studied both Buddhism and Gnosticism, there is VERY LITTLE Buddhist about Ishamael/Moridin and there is NOTHING REMOTELY GNOSTIC about Rand's inner dispute in tGS.

My first real interaction at the old wotmania was to tear into a series of theories that Durandir (now a good friend) had posted about the Jungian elements in the Wheel of Time. Jung invariably comes up when people talk about Jordan because they either don't read enough Jung to really understand him (just enough to be dangerous) or they overextend his conclusions, or both.

Jungian archetypes would and could be present in every single work of fiction. Of course, when we can quantify them or point to them, they lose any psychic value they might have had for us because they move from our unconscious to our conscious mind, they are quantified and dealt with. It's a psychological device that is used in clinical psychiatry to help patients recognise the root of problems when the patient can't figure them out.

Furthermore, you wrote:

What makes the TWoT special and fairly unusual is that Jordan doesn't just recycle them in their standard roles; he mixes them, twists and inverts them.

That's not actually all that unusual or special to The Wheel of Time. Pretty much every author does that. Martin twisted around the Wars of the Roses and some other events from history. Sanderson set the canons of fantasy on their head. Completely recycling would make Jordan even more derivative than he already is. If he had been that derivative, I wouldn't have bothered to have read him.

I will agree that the Arthurian legends are very heavily represented, not only in names but also in story line. In fact, I consider the Arthurian legends to be the primary source material that Jordan twisted around to come up with his story. It certainly wasn't War and Peace, regardless of what bullshit he may have come up with to try to compare his work with Tolstoy.

For the record, I haven't seen one indication that fate vs. free will has played a major role in these stories. No one has questioned that or even come close, with the possible exception of Rand, briefly, at the end of The Gathering Storm. He's said "I don't want to be the Dragon Reborn" to pull on the "reluctant hero" stereotype, but there's never been a great deal of discussion about fate vs. free will. It's an elephant in the room that would have helped remove the glaring superficiality of the series, but it's unexplored. I wonder if Rand's final scene on Dragonmount would have been even remotely decent if Sanderson hadn't written it, and my suspicion is that it wouldn't have been.

To say there's been a love theme in the book is like saying there's a love theme in A Song of Ice and Fire. Yeah...it's...uh...I guess there are people in love and...sure, Rand loves Elayne and Avi and Min, and Nynaeve loves Lan and...I guess that's good...but I could care less about any of them. Jordan has wasted a lot of lines on describing dresses and naming horses, but he's done a truly shitty, second-rate job in crafting a love story out of this series if that was one of his goals. I never thought it was central or important so I never criticised it, but if you're going to argue it was important I must take EXTREME issue with your point. Fifth-rate hack Hollywood screenplay writers often do better with love stories. Jordan's skill is about equivalent to Dan Brown's in that department.

I think that I will stop, now that I've gotten to the point where I compared Jordan to Dan Brown. He's not that bad in most of what he does. However, to restate my original point, throwing names into a blender does not mean Jordan drew upon stories and made them his own.