I'm inclined to believe, the same as you, that perhaps there really is no such thing as a selfless act.
I don't believe the oscar winner is thanking god for actually choosing them to win. Instead, they are thanking god for; their talents; support from friends, family, and gatekeepers; and life experience in general leading up to the award. The monk in this case is simply an unfortunate victim of circumstance.
It's been studied and proven that many animals are in fact self-aware. If a self-aware being's only choice is to obey or suffer a beating until it does what you command, even though it can choose to suffer a beating instead of obeying, wouldn't you say it's free will has been diminished? Being given a choice of only two available options, A or B, overlooks any possibility of there being an option C,D or E. This is a flase dilemma, one that is indeed being presented to us every day by politicians and corporations, to make us believe we have no choices other than the ones offered by them.
Observing and understanding predictable behaviour is very different from actually programming behaviour. MKULTRA experiments were designed and studied for the express purpose of controlling human behavior, often without the participants consent or even knowledge of said experiments taking place.
Obviously it's just paranoid to be afraid of taking any step because it was somehow predetermined you would take one, but what if a path was laid before you that led to a cliff? The path being, tragedies and circumstances designed to break your spirit and the cliff being suggested as the answer.
You may be right about the "thanking god" thing, perhaps I was a bit harsh with my basic reasoning there. It does make more sense the way you describe it - I suppose they may even just be thanking god that they got the chance to exist at all (and therefore become successful), and aren't claiming that they were "chosen" for some reason or another, in a karmic sense.
You also make a good point about self-aware animals, I think I agree with you that the free will of such an animal could be diminished by a master. When I said it was an all or nothing scenario, I was talking about the base idea of free-will vs a predetermined path. I think I understand what you're saying now - perhaps the higher the gap of intelligence, life experience and knowledge between the "slave" and the "master", the easier it is that the "slave" will simply obey the "master" without thinking of other less obvious options?
For instance, although some animals have been proven to be self-aware, maybe their behaviour still mostly operates on an instinctual level, and their lack of experience means they will overlook the other options (stupid example, but maybe if a gorilla is beaten by his master, he has the free will to act a certain way but eg. couldn't steal the keys to his cage, escape and then poison his master's coffee because the gorilla doesn't possess the knowledge of these systems. I suppose the gorilla's free will has been diminished to an extent, but I don't think it will ever be fully suppressed as long as the creature remains self-aware.)
Saw an interesting documentary series all about animal intelligence and self-awareness: Inside the Animal Mind - I think there should still be a torrent of them floating about, well worth a watch (I couldn't stop laughing at one point, where two dolphins are having sex while watching themselves in a mirror )