those limits can be removed by changing societal norms, but feeling constrained by clothing is something that someone can not change about themselves.

One one side you said

  changing societal norms

but at the same time you said

  one cannot change about themselves. 

Strong contradiction. How does society change if people don't? Get them while they are young?

its more like 'dont get them while they are young'. when society teaches children from an early age that public nudity is shameful, they are going to grow up having an aversion to it. i doubt this aversion is innate, its taught by society. on the other hand, preferring the feel of nakedness is going to be an innate preference i believe.

I could have seen this is where this was going.

You have zero clue on how the systems we have today originated. Yet you want to hypothesize on what a made up world would be like if we didn't teach certain things.

Answer the first question: Are you suggesting society change while arguing at the same time a person cannot change?

"People are disturbed not by things, but by the views they take of them." --Epictitus.

"There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so." --Shakespeare.

morality is fundamentally based on opinion. from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem, Hume writes: "In every system of morality, which I have hitherto met with, I have always remarked, that the author proceeds for some time in the ordinary way of reasoning, and establishes the being of a God, or makes observations concerning human affairs; when of a sudden I am surprised to find, that instead of the usual copulations of propositions, is, and is not, I meet with no proposition that is not connected with an ought, or an ought not. This change is imperceptible; but is, however, of the last consequence. For as this ought, or ought not, expresses some new relation or affirmation, it's necessary that it should be observed and explained; and at the same time that a reason should be given, for what seems altogether inconceivable, how this new relation can be a deduction from others, which are entirely different from it. But as authors do not commonly use this precaution, I shall presume to recommend it to the readers; and am persuaded, that this small attention would subvert all the vulgar systems of morality, and let us see, that the distinction of vice and virtue is not founded merely on the relations of objects, nor is perceived by reason."

Morality can also be based on game theory.

the quran also has a math error in its inheritence laws: https://www.reddit.com/r/exmuslim/comments/98rpd8/qurans_mat...

Corelation does not imply causation. Maybe its that people who are prone to depression have some factors that make them less likely to believe in religion.