I really like that last sentence.
Who, and at what point, is the basis for such a "need" determined?
It is self-evident that such a need is personally based and will range in severity of concern from person to person with one perspective being no more or less equal to that of any other perspective within reason.
The same is true for the second half of your initial sentence. You alone are determining that a subject another is curious about has no meaning, needs no meaning, and should dole out punishment when such is sought. However, you fall into your own trap because you're no more an authority on what is deserved or needed than the next person. You state your own perspective even though there is no "need" for it.
I also fail to see how a supporting argument to intelligent design has anything to do with finding the meaning of death. Especially since the metaphysical heaven and hell hasn't been discussed as such.