The Law states that “no energy can be destroyed or created, for it is constant; it can only be transformed from one form to another”. Do you think this alignes with many of the teachings of Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism (Eastern philosphy in general) about everything infact being one “oneness” so to say, and death being non existant (which is weird to say since death implies non existence)? All is being, shifting from one form to another, everywhere the same, completely full like a sphere; constant outpour of energy cycling into eternity. What is your stance on this?
The Law states that “no energy can be destroyed or created..."
Not quite. In its classical formulation, the 1st law says that energy is constant in a closed system. As this isn't entirely true, it has had a number of reformulations to include rest energy and virtual particles. I'm not a big fan of them, scientifically speaking, as they require you to measure the energy content of the universe to verify.
Do you think this aligns with many of the teachings ... Eastern philosophy
It really doesn't. The religions you mention are very well developed and absolutely are not talking about energy in the thermodynamic sense. There are, of course, some points of crossover but it's generally superficial.
and death being non existent
Minor point but they tend to see death as a transformation rather than not actually existing.
And a comment on the attempt to link scientific theories to most extant religions. Please exercise caution here. These religions are very well established, very well documented and very well understood. They are not enhanced or validated in any way by superficial linking to modern science. The same goes with similar attempts in Christianity, usually with Genesis.
Although I agree with Alex’s answer, I think the following offers a different perspective. I don’t think it is in the best interests of religions to link too closely with the “energy” concepts from physics.
Energy is an idea that describes reality. Subjectivity is removed from this description and the description becomes data. We try to isolate our subjectivity further by using mathematics to manipulate the data and look for patterns. We then project those patterns back onto reality and proclaim that the patterns are not just in our mathematical models of the descriptions but they are also in reality as laws of nature. Since subjectivity was removed at the start of the process, subjectivity has no place in the resulting laws of nature.
Religious ideas are also descriptions of reality. Subjectivity turns these descriptions into stories and we project them back into reality. Out of this comes various deities. Since subjectivity was not removed, our deities are conscious like we are. These deities are like the laws of nature except the deities are conscious and the laws are not.
I assume that honest descriptions of reality reflect some truth about reality no matter their source and no matter how small. However none of the descriptions are reality itself. They are not complete descriptions. What I presented above is itself a description of reality and people may disagree with it.
How far should someone with a predominantly religious perspective associate with something like the first law of thermodynamics which describes reality in terms of unconscious energy? To what extent should that person align with an unconscious description of reality? Furthermore, a law of nature can be viewed as an unconscious deity that is deterministic and valid throughout all space and time. To what extent should that person align with a deterministic law?
Given a physicalist perspective, one can ask similar questions about various religions. They do provide stories about subjectivity, but some of those stories contain conscious deities. Conscious deities and unconscious laws of nature conflict with each other.
The law has one implication for dualism, specifically Cartesian dualism. If the mind controls the body (as in causing one's arm to rise because one wants to raise it), then where does the energy come from in a physically closed universe of which the arm and the body are parts ? Raising one's arm needs energy but this cannot derive from a non-extended, non-temporal substance such as the mind. If it did, then the mind would be creating energy in addition to that existing in the physical world.