I suggest a light cone.
Like a giant lens hood that reaches from the lens to behind the subject, the cone is made from a 54" wide roll of white plastic diffusion material (from SetShop), and the bottom at the subject end is flattened, or cut out.
I use a strip of 1/4" Lexan 4"x8' bent into an inverted U shape and fastened to a piece of plywood, as a support for the big end of the cone.

The subject sits about a foot inside the cone.
Lighting is done from the outside of the cone and can be contrasty with light source close to the cone or flat with light spread over a larger area of the cone. Reflections in glossy subjects are all beautiful smooth gradients, much cleaner than available qube tents.

I thought keeping the lens stationary and moving the body for focus stacking would be a good idea, so I had a machinist friend make up adaptors to convert my StackShot to a motorized bellows.
Working at high magnifications, the amount of bellows extension required to stack focus a 5mm deep subject was huge, and the image size change with focusing was also huge.

I reverted to more standard techniques.

For camera in motion applications, video heads and gimbal heads, - for fixed camera applications, can't beat a geared head.

For birds in flight ball heads make the least sense. Conowingo Dam has BIF photographers lined up tripod to tripod shooting Bald Eagles this time of year. The Big Glass seems to be mostly on gimbal heads, followed closely by large video heads. Very few ball heads.
I use a gimbal head on my home made gimbal chair. It lets me track birds whichever way they fly.
The chair and counterweighted boom do the large movements and the gimbal head is balanced and damped for smooth tracking. The dot sight makes tracking BIF with very long lenses almost easy.

(Download)

With that body and lens, the carrying strap should be attached to the lens foot.
When I carry my 100-400+1.4x on a body, I attach one strap to the lens foot and one strap to the L plate on the camera.

My RRS L plate has a QD socket, so I use that as a single point attachment on the bottom of the camera.
I have an early model RRS lens foot which lacks the QD socket of the current model, but I found a QD socket online and added it to the side of the lens foot.

The straps each thread both ends of the webbing through ~ 1' wide QD steel sling connectors, and connect / disconnect with the push of a button. No plastic.

Lens strap goes over shoulder, camera strap goes around my neck.
Rig hangs upside down, under my left arm, lens pointed to the back.

Perfectly positioned for good protection and ready to grip with right hand, the camera swings up to eye without any restrictions..
Straps hang out of the way in shooting position.

Load is carried by the lens strap and the camera straps limits the rig's movement while walking.

Body and lens each hang from their own strap, so lens changing is easier, (both hands free).
Dovetails have room to attach to tripod heads without removing straps first.

I picked up a golf bag caddy, extremely lightweight, folding, and with all terrain wheels.
I bolted a plastic milk crate to it and use bungee cords to secure tripod. Camera gear is carried in soft padded cases in the crate.

RRS makes a replacement lens foot that incorporates a QD socket. Attach your strap to a QD sling connector and it connects and disconnects with the push of a button.

Do not carry that rig by the camera strap.

So the pictures you used on the greeting cards your ministry has already sold were your own?

You asked a question that I answered, for you, and more importantly, for the readers of this forum. I'll stop when I'm done.

If I pricked your conscience, it was purely intentional.

Churchers hate it when you point out their hypocrisy.

Which site(s) have you used images from?
Is a church exempt from possession of stolen property, given to it by the thief?
Does your ministry know you have put them in jeopardy of a copyright infringement suit?
Do you plan to continue to steal images?

Feeling chastised? "Repent, and sin no more."

#6 seems closest to question at hand -
#6 You can’t use someone’s photo just because you found it on Twitter.

famous-copyright-cases-haiti-port-au-prince-morel-afp-twitter

Summary:

Photojournalist Daniel Morel sued Getty Images and Agence France-Presse for taking and selling photos of the 2010 Haiti earthquake from his Twitter account.

Outcome:

Twitter allows for posting and retweeting, but not commercial use of photographs posted by users. The jury awarded Morel $1.2m in damages.

Despite this ruling, many still believe that copyright is lost when a work is posted on social media. As we explain to infringers every day, this is simply not the case, and it was an expensive lesson for Getty.

There is no exemption to copyright law for "personal use".

(c)Statutory Damages.—
(1) Except as provided by clause (2) of this subsection, the copyright owner may elect, at any time before final judgment is rendered, to recover, instead of actual damages and profits, an award of statutory damages for all infringements involved in the action, with respect to any one work, for which any one infringer is liable individually, or for which any two or more infringers are liable jointly and severally, in a sum of not less than $750 or more than $30,000 as the court considers just. For the purposes of this subsection, all the parts of a compilation or derivative work constitute one work.
(2) In a case where the copyright owner sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that infringement was committed willfully, the court in its discretion may increase the award of statutory damages to a sum of not more than $150,000. In a case where the infringer sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that such infringer was not aware and had no reason to believe that his or her acts constituted an infringement of copyright, the court in its discretion may reduce the award of statutory damages to a sum of not less than $200. The court shall remit statutory damages in any case where an infringer believed and had reasonable grounds for believing that his or her use of the copyrighted work was a fair use under section 107, if the infringer was: (i) an employee or agent of a nonprofit educational institution, library, or archives acting within the scope of his or her employment who, or such institution, library, or archives itself, which infringed by reproducing the work in copies or phonorecords; or (ii) a public broadcasting entity which or a person who, as a regular part of the nonprofit activities of a public broadcasting entity (as defined in section 118(f)) infringed by performing a published nondramatic literary work or by reproducing a transmission program embodying a performance of such a work.

You can probably get away with the petty theft of intellectual property, and violation of US copyright law.

The chance of the photographer having registered the copyright, and discovering your violation of it are very small.
The cost to you if caught can be huge!

The bigger deterrent should be your own morality.

If it's in their user agreement...