Now I'm really confused by the high similarity of Schelling's thoughts and Boehme's. I suspect this pattern may exist in every religion.

Schelling (in 1811 version):
1. Wrath (divine egoism) - divinity - Darkness, Nothingness, formless Chaos, Abyss - female "Nature is nothing other than divine egoism, softly and gently subdued by love." (dark world of the Father)
2. Love - Light, Creation - male "Creation is the conquest of divine selfishness by divine love" (light world of the Son, the son "overcomes the dark force of indifference in the Father", then "only with the emergence of the Son does the Father begin to understand himself and exercise the power of differentiation", hence Schelling believes a gradually self-conscious God)

Wrath -> Love
female -> male

Boehme:
1. Wrath - Seed - Darkness, Nothingness, formless Chaos, Abyss, contraction - male (dark world of the Father)
2. Love - Duality - Light, Mirror, Sophia, world of creation, expansion - female (light world of the Holy Spirit)

Wrath -> Love
male -> female (this is why Boehme belives that the son of God became human through the Virgin Mary)

Some of Schelling's other innovations are also mentioned on p. 43-44 of Martensen's Jacob Boehme: His Life and Teaching or Studies in Theosophy.

I think you already knew Schelling (and also Hegel) read Boehme extensively. I think Jung never read Schelling but he has similar thoughts to Schelling. As S. J. McGrath wrote in his The Dark Ground of Spirit this is a current of thought, and has a long tradition that can be dated back to Joachim of Fiore etc. and has many similarity to some Kabbalistic tradition, which Friedrich Heer tried to trace back 70 years ago (so his studies are quite outdated but he had the best big picture, much better than Voegelin, while Voegelin was a better philosopher and was more in line with contemporary thoughts, though he wasn't friendly with this current of thought).
If you read Peirce you'll find that even if Peirce wasn't an ardent reader of the German Romanticists, he read Schelling, and he's a less artistic but much clearer version of Schelling. Peirce was a better metaphysician, and Schelling was a more versatile and "dramatic" thinker who also did exegesis and studied on religions.
A Jungian or Hegelian way, or even Peircean way of thinking about this is that by discerning this pattern in religion you're observing the movement of the Spirit.

>>191
>Peirce
It looks like the school of pragmatism was a successor to the German Romantics, such as William James' book on religious experience and Peirce's two volumes philosophical writings… (haven't read Peirce yet).
Gradually I realized that the German Romantics literally made everything blossom…
Guess Meister Eckhart belongs also to the group of names you mentioned.

>>193
And I'm carefully reading Hodgkinson's paper these days, generally, all of these seem to be in a same philosophical temperament as what I felt in the history of mountaineering. When I found out that Horace Bénédict de Saussure even had some contact with Goethe, I was literally ecstatic.
But I think the perennial school should probably be excluded from this alliance.

>>193
German Romanticism is merely a segment of the current…There's a convoluted history of the emergence of evolutionary thought behind. I still think Heer's book is the best in tracing the current, though it is not conclusive.
How Goethe studied natural history, how natural history as a discipline emerged in France, etc. parallels and concordances everywhere. I won't even say it is philosophical temperament, it is literally the Spirit moves.
I'm not sure whether the perennial school should be excluded or not since I don't see any "school" there. It is just a variety of people not accepted in any cultural mainstream (German romanticism is totally a mainstream current) claiming that they are inheriting a certain tradition which is largely imaginary and loosely formed into a so-called school. It is a totally new-age phenomenon, a form of new religion.