Hi @Ansis100 welcome to the community! On a Play Raw thread, we usually share a sidecar file (xmp, pp3, arp, etc) so that others can inspect and learn from our edits. If you used a raster editor like GIMP or Krita, a few words about what you did would be really helpful!
Also please apply some compression and downscaling to your file. 13.8MB is much too large for a JPEG on the internet.
Ha ha I love it… your edits are always great …including the fun ones…Next up maybe a Lord of the Rings character…I get that sort of vibe from the photo… 
Your processing is a very nice example of a technique I have heard described as “painting with light” (sorry I don’t remember the source).
Specifically for light shooting through the trees, it can look spectacular but requires some practice to capture well because of the high dynamic range: some areas will be very bright, the rest very dark, usually with a high-contrast boundary. The light in your example is much more mellow.
The only unnatural aspect of the image is when one tries to guess the direction of the light, as a single light source would not produce a scene like this (shadows/lights are in various directions on the little mounds).
Even so I absolutely understand what you are saying and agree to a large entent. I would see it a bit more sophisticated:
Nearly everything is unnatural on the picture. The question is to what extent. Everything is just slightly over the top, so that the brain is still able to say:
“It’s not unreal, it was just was a very special situation with very special circumstances. I’m just not used to such things”
While doing it to such an extent like I did on this photo is cheating to create interest, most photographers are doing similar things to generate interest already when they take the photo. For example, by taking the photo from just a few centimetres above the ground, or using reflectors to bring light where there is too less of it, etc.
On top, I concur a little bit with the statement about the wrong shadows. In a wood there are often different light directions with different light power. On this picture there is light from the edge of the wood as well as light from above (from gaps in the treetops in different sizes). But there could be further light from a further forest edge, which is not visible on the photo. So I would say the Shadows in the way shown are unlikely but possible, when it was a very special situation, with very special circumstances. 
As written in my initial post, I usually leave photos like that aside and concentrate on better images. But using techniques like this is an appropriate way to generate further interest, even on a nice picture. Even so it should usually be a more moderate use.
This technique was just one way to generate tension. In the end the real thing I wanted to show, were my thoughts BEFORE I edit a picture and how important it is to observe the everyday environment. To know how things look and how far you can go on an edit.
I fully agree. In fact, a lot of photographers routinely do way more, and care very little about consistency or even physics.
Please don’t get me wrong: I consider your execution of this edit masterful, I just think it is very difficult to achieve a result that stands up to detailed scrutiny using this technique. And most viewers, especially those not doing photography, just would not care about details like this. I just felt like pointing this out.
You got me wrong with this sentence:
What I wanted to say is that an outstanding photo has always unusual and special things on it. That’s how good photos work.
And a good photographer is achieving these special effects (be it an unusual perspective an unusual light an untypical empty street, long exposure effects…) already when he takes the photo, not with post-processing.
A bad photo like this will never become an outstanding photo. But with a really good photo and a far more moderate use of techniques like this, you can transform it into a masterpiece.
And yes,
therefore, I recommend, to watch everything around you in detail and use such techniques just to a moderate extent.
OK; I’m sure I missed a few spots that need some additional cloning love; oh well. lololol
https://www.flickr.com/photos/163034485@N03/54395592959/sizes/o
I started playing with this one before I saw all the fun interpretations, and now I feel mine’s boring 
But I really enjoyed your explanations and seeing the different takes on it. Thanks!
