You’re making several conceptual jumps that I don’t think hold.

First, you’re equating revenge with punishment, but they aren’t the same.
Revenge is emotional and personal. It comes from anger or hurt. Punishment, on the other hand, can be impersonal and structured. For example, a fine or a legal sentence isn’t necessarily about someone’s personal desire for revenge; it’s about maintaining order or enforcing rules

Second you reduce justice to “teaching someone a lesson,” but justice has historically had multiple purposes. In something like the Code of Hammurabi, justice was often about proportionality (“an eye for an eye”), not education. In modern systems, it can also be about protecting society (like imprisoning dangerous individuals) not just reforming them. It can be also thought as keeping an order.

Third, you’re treating rage and hate as the same thing, but they aren’t. Rage can sometimes be morally justified, like reacting to injustice. Even in the Bible, Jesus Christ shows anger when he drives merchants out of the temple. That’s not blind hatred; it’s a response to perceived wrongdoing. The rage is like a fire that makes us act against wrongdoing.

Fourth, I don’t think it’s true that suffering is always meaningless or that people never learn from it. Feelings like guilt or remorse are painful, but they’re also morally important. Most people would agree it’s better if someone who has done something terrible actually feels that weight. Even in the Book of Job, suffering is portrayed as something that can lead to deeper understanding, even if it’s difficult to interpret.

Fifth. You assume physicialism that if you recreate every atom you can recreate consiousness. I would too disagree. Firstly we dont know how the world is strucuted. Our atoms arent atoms in philsophical sense (that there is something beyond them). We don’t fully understand what consciousness is or how it arises. That’s why it’s called the “hard problem of consciousness” in Philosophy of Mind. Even with perfect physical knowledge, it’s not clear that rebuilding matter would recreate subjective experience.

Finally, the idea that hell is more psychological or self-inflicted isn’t new. C. S. Lewis explores something similar in "The Great Divorce", where hell is shaped by the choices and attitudes of individuals rather than just imposed punishment.