I think that's an accurate assessment of Vervaeke's intentions. It's consistent with what I say in my longer examination of his project (link below). See especially the section "Meaning in Life versus the Meaning of Life" (and the subsequent sections), in which I catch Vervaeke mocking the philosophical question of whether life has a purpose.
Vervaeke's coming at the problem from the cognitive sciences, which means as eclectic and freewheeling as he is in drawing from wildly nonscientific, ancient religious traditions, he's still apparently scientistic enough to dismiss philosophical formulations when they seem to him insufficiently rigorous and scientific. That prejudice against philosophy strikes me as egregiously incoherent, given his deference to nonscientific religions.
But yes, "synthesizing the disparate threads of science, psychology, philosophy, and religion" sounds like a more manageable project than coming out and answering the philosophical question of whether life itself is meaningful.
The bottom line for me is that, whereas Vervaeke's very well-read and there's much to learn from his videos, I don't entirely trust his approach. He reminds me of Bernie Sanders: both are interlopers, and both are held captive by the institution that hosts them (by the Democratic Party or the cognitive science department), which institution is antithetical to their stated interests. When you're trying to change a system from within, the system's liable to corrupt you.
