This working paper develops a structural account of death, afterlife, and continuity within the SΔϕ Formalism. It argues that death should not be treated merely as biological cessation or as a metaphysical mystery, but as the strongest form of irreversible closure. Within this framework, death marks the collapse of callability, the cessation of self-editing, and the end of internally authored reopening from within the closed path itself. From this basis, the paper reinterprets afterlife not first as a doctrinal claim about another world, but as a reopening structure formed against closure. Human beings do not only fear disappearance; they also confront unfinished justice, unresolved responsibility, broken relational continuity, and the possibility that meaning may close before it stabilizes. Afterlife therefore emerges as a structural refusal of absolute closure. The paper then argues that once continuity becomes technically, institutionally, or commercially claimable, it becomes vulnerable to commodification. What continuity markets sell is not survival itself, but authority over what counts as continuation after irreversible closure. In this sense, the marketization of continuity transforms death into a site of governance, ownership, and asymmetrical control. The paper further examines authority over death, justice beyond death, continuity capture, and posthumous coercion. It argues that continuation itself may become forced when simulation, reconstruction, preservation, or posthumous representation are administered without sufficient prior affirmation or beyond legitimate scope. This makes posthumous continuity not only a metaphysical or emotional question, but an ethical and political one concerning authority, refusal, and capture under maximum asymmetry. The central thesis is: Death is the strongest form of irreversible closure. Afterlife is a reopening structure formed against that closure. Once continuity becomes marketized, death becomes a site of authority capture. This document positions death and afterlife not only as religious or existential themes, but as structural problems of closure, reopening, continuity, and governance.