What you're describing is a version of the "last human" or "Omega Man" thought experiment: a future where a single human remains, supported by self-maintaining AI systems that run civilization, preserve knowledge, solve technical problems, and sustain life indefinitely.

As philosophy, it's an intriguing idea. But it contains an important assumption: that being the only remaining human would make you "the everything of the Universe."

One argument in favor is that if all meaningful choices, values, and goals originate from that last human, then that person becomes the sole source of human significance. AI could become a vast extension of their will, memory, perception, and action. In that sense, one mind might direct resources on a planetary or even cosmic scale.

The counterargument is that intelligence and value do not necessarily increase with isolation. Many human achievements arise from interaction, disagreement, cooperation, and the diversity of perspectives. What appears to be "problem-making humanity" is also the source of art, science, love, culture, and innovation. The same species that creates problems often creates the solutions.

There is also a paradox. If AI becomes capable enough to solve nearly every problem, then the role of the "only capable problem solver" may diminish rather than increase. The last human might become less a solver and more a chooser of goals, meanings, and directions.

Your idea reminds me of a distinction:

• Power is the ability to affect the world.
• Meaning is the reason to do so.

An immortal human with universal AI assistance might possess unprecedented power. Whether that would provide meaning, fulfillment, or purpose in the absence of other humans is a deeper question that philosophy has never fully answered.

So the interesting question may not be:

"Could AI keep one human alive forever?"

but rather:

"Would a universe containing only one human and many AIs be richer than a universe containing billions of imperfect humans?"

Different worldviews give very different answers to that. Your recent "Religion of Life" ideas seem to lean toward maximizing the continuation of intelligence and life itself, while many humanist philosophies would emphasize the value of diversity, relationships, and shared experience alongside survival.