Who is a "Well-Read" Person?

The first & most important requirement is a love of reading & knowledge for its own sake, i.e., for pure pleasure. This rules out at once those who read to get degrees for recognition & then employment. Even persons having a string of degrees after their name (including doctorates) can by no means be considered "well read".

One of the distinguishing marks is complete absence of dogmatism in their opinions, especially in regard to religion or politics. This is because they will have read too many different valid viewpoints, freeing them from "tunnel vision." So they will be blessed with an open mind.

Another "give away" of being well read, especially with regards to literature, is usage of idiomatic language rather than just the correct one. Each language has its own unique idiom, which brings it to life. Also use of appropriate references to support & bolster one's statements. (Also proof of being really well read!)

Even people who are not well read, now have an itch to appear so & publish their writings. Instead of writing  on a subject which they love & have abundant knowledge, they start with zero knowledge or love of the subject, but start writing anyway, gathering material on the way. This type of "writing to order" just to get recognition, turns out insipid for obvious reasons, & would be recognised at once for what it is by well read persons.

Is Hinducentric view the only antidote to Eurocentric view?

Upto the middle of the twentieth century, it was common to take a world view through the prism of Eurocentricity. Here it is to be remembered that even in pre-Christian days, people like Socrates pioneered rational thinking. However, he was ahead of his time & was poisoned. Dante, in his "The Divine Comedy", placed him in the first circle of hell because he was not a baptised Christian. 

The Stoics, the most famous of whom was the Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius (author of "Meditations"), also propounded ideas similar to the later Buddhism. Hypatia, a Pagan philosopher, was torn to pieces by a Christian mob. However, Charles Kingsley, a Christian clergyman (& author of "The Water Babies") wrote an adulatory biography of her life & times.

Buddhism, with its ten perfections, belief in reincarnation & defining "Nibbana" (Nirvana) as the goal of life, offered an alternative to Hinduism. Jainism, with its 24 Thirthankaras (enlightened souls), also offers an alternative path, with emphasis on self-mortification.

So instead of polarising between Eurocentrism & Hindu centrism, it may be prudent for the well-read, who are aware of the preceding movements, to take a multi-centric view to arrive at a holistic approach towards understanding this world.

Worshippers & Lovers of God

It may be paradoxical but there is a world of difference between the two. The worshippers do so because they expect worldly benefits like health, wealth, power, status or progeny as a reward. Their true goal in life is to obtain the above by lawful (or even unlawful!) means & when they fail, worship God as an additional last resort. The quintessential examples are the politicians doing the "Temple Run" during critical phases of their careers.

As repeatedly noted in the Upanishads, Christ's teachings, & even in one instance in the Quran, humans cannot get "the peace beyond understanding" by the above. In fact they have to be abjured to get real peace. "Thou shall not serve both God & Mammon" admonishes the Bible.

The real lovers of God are those who give up everything, repeat EVERYTHING for God. The Hindu, Jain, Buddhist & Christian monastics (both monks & nuns) & the odd sufis like Rabia of Basra exemplify this truth. The sine qua non is to give up the most desired things & embrace voluntary poverty & celibacy & true love of God will follow.