Okay, so essentially you're asking two separate questions here. (1) Were Native American population densities along the coast large enough to create "highways" as well as domes of light from their fires? (2) Did Europeans choose to live in Native American communities? I'll tackle the first question before moving to the second.

First, while popular history often paints Native American populations as small-scale foragers living in small bands, the Atlantic coast was home to some of the largest population densities in North America. These communities, based on maize agriculture, could support large populations, as well as social hierarchies that determined the flow of tribute. In coastal Virginia, Powhatan/Wahunsenaca united over thirty nations into his paramount chiefdom. Tsenacomoco, the Powhatan name for tidewater Virginia, roughly translates to "densely inhabited land". Exact numbers are impossible to come by, but the Powhatan greatly outnumbered the new arrivals at Jamestown. There is a reason Jamestown was founded on an inhospitable spit of land with only brackish water to drink: all the good places were taken and they needed a highly defensible position if a stronger native force took issue with their arrival. Similar dense populations of Guale and Calusa supported Spanish missions in Florida, the pueblos along the Rio Grande in New Mexico, or allied with the French along the St Lawrence River. The New World was a bustling place, home to millions, who built massive communities, maintained trail highways, paddled its waterways, and allied or opposed the European newcomers as they saw fit. It took centuries for the descendents of European colonists to gain hegemony east of the Mississippi River. I highly recommend Richter's Facing East From Indian Country for a very readable introduction to the fascinating history of the Eastern Woodlands of North America.

Now, as far as Europeans choosing to live in Native American communities, we know of many instances of this occurring, specifically following a period of captivity. Briefly, prior to contact Native American warfare in the Eastern Woodlands mostly featured small scale raids against enemies, with captives frequently taken in those raids. Practices differed between nations, but in some places like with the Iroquois/Haudenosaunee, most women and children were ritually adopted into the new nation. They took the name, and even possibly some of the social status, of a beloved recently deceased relative, and their captive/slave status wasn't inherited by their children. Again, practices varied, and captivity may not have been as positive along the Great Lakes, but these captives served to bolster population size after contact, and served as cultural intermediaries between groups. After Europeans arrived they entered the Native American political sphere, and were subject to raids and captivity. Several highly popularized accounts, including the aftermath of a 1704 raid on Deerfield, Massachusetts where several women chose to stay with their captives instead of return to Massachusetts, scandalized colonial life. Check out The Unredeemed Captive: A Family Story from Early America for a good introduction to captivity narratives and the reasons influencing a captive staying, or choosing not to stay, in their adopted nation.

Hope this helps. Let me know if you have further questions, or want recommendations for further reading!