Dark energy, dark matter, dark stars ?

We do not know. Perhaps if it does exist it would be akin to antimatter, which is said to be the opposite of normal matter. Perhaps these dark photons are another way of describing dark energy. But, again, we do not know. Interesting thought though. :)

As far as we know those three are distinct phenomenon with very different effects and possible origins. The word dark is simply meant to mean that it cannot be perceived with our modern technology. Since no phenomenon has ever been observed that would require the existence of a type of photon we could not see than we conclude that there is no evidence for its existence. However Dark matter is matter that does not interact with electromagnetic charge so photons, being the carrier for electromagnetism, are by definition the opposite of dark anything. Dark energy, on the other hand, is far more mysterious but again is very unlikely to have anything to do with photons.

No. Photons are the force carrier of the electromagnetic force.

Dark energy is the name to an unknown "anti-gravity" force that accelerates the expansion of the Universe.

Dark matter is the name to a source of matter which cannot be seen by telescopes (though this is not necessarily an exotic material).

Dark stars is the same thing as dark matter or what Newton referred to as a blackhole.

i don't think so - photons only experience the electromagnetic force. things that are 'dark' do not emit light, so do not experience the electromagnetic force. a 'dark photon' proposes a particle which doesn't experience any forces at all, so we'd never be able to detect it.

"Dark" this and "dark" that all came out of big bang theory. You need to remember that the big bang exists only in somebody's imagination. It is not an observed event. Nobody has ever seen any evidence of a big bang without assuming that there was such a thing.

The only reason a big bang theory was needed was to account for implications of an expanding universe. The only reason a theory of expanding universe was needed was to account for receding galaxies. The only reason a theory of receding galaxies was needed was to account for red shift in their light, based on the assumption that red shift is caused by motion away from us.

Ok, what we have here is a chain of logic, all based on a single assumption. If that assumption is wrong then all the theories based on it are invalid. Not necessarily wrong, just not supported by any observation. And that is why you need to remember that the big bang exists only in somebody's imagination. Because there are other known causes of red shift besides the Doppler effect.