UL: I don't click with children either, but I really enjoyed supervising high school interns at work (I supervised 53 of them over 20 years). Perhaps you could be a big brother to a teenager? I think teens are more like adults in training, and children are like aliens from another planet.
I do also think it's worth revisiting the idea of criteria for a partner. DH and I first fell for each other when he was 12 and I was 15, so our criteria was probably along the lines of "male" and "female." We really evolved together, and so are on the same page about most things, if not all. I wouldn't think you would be happy with someone who was grossly materialistic, but maybe you could do well with someone more mainstream, and you might influence each other and both shift a bit in your ideas. You could have a "man cave" and keep it empty.
I think religion could be harder because I myself cannot fully respect the mind of a religious person (I see them as essentially irrational in a fundamental way). But it works for IL and her DH, so maybe keeping an open mind to at least agnostics, or not terribly observant believers (you obviously will avoid those who are passionate about converting others).
The movie we watched yesterday, "The Lobster" had me thinking a lot about this thread. There was an expectation that you needed to partner with someone who shared a "defining characteristic" with you such as being prone to nosebleeds, walking with a limp, or is nearsighted. Those are obviously silly, but I think a point was being made, and that we are poorly served by going around with a strict list of requirements that could cause one to rule out someone who could have been the great love of their life.