While it's tempting to think about the shares/money you lost and try to get them back, you really need to think of every new order as a new, separate decision.
Selling calls will earn you money if the underlying will not go up too much. So yes, trivially, "If META price stabilizes and doesn't move for the next 10 years", you can get back (some of) the money/stocks you lost by selling calls.
But if that doesn't happen, e.g. if the stock goes up more, you might lose even more money.
And you could also earn (some of) the money back if you invest the money you got from the call execution into something completely different. (Or you could just as well lose more money there too).
So, coming back to my initial sentence: generally, you should only sell a specific call if you would sell it even if nothing else had happened before. And since you are unfamiliar with options, you probably wouldn't sell options if nothing else had happened before, especially if there is a lot of money at stake. But if want to go into options, and your assumption is that meta is going sideways (and you don't have something else you prefer to invest in more), selling calls is a valid decision (but independent from what has happened before).
But to point out the obvious: if there were a guaranteed way to earn money with a specific option strategy, everyone would just do that. So there is no guarantee. You earn money if you predict correctly. You lose money if you don't.
But if that doesn't convince you (e.g. because you cannot shake the feeling that you made a loss), you might want to try a frame challenge:
You got the shares for 0$ (which might not be correct if you got them instead of a higer salary, but currently, you think of those shares as free). You sold them (by executing the call) at some price around $130 (plus minus the premiums you got and paid). That's the same result as if you had decided at that point that $130 is a good price and you had just sold the stock directly: you got $130 free money.
Of course, in hindsight, you could have gotten more if you had waited. But that's basically true for every stock trade ever made by anyone. If you sell at a price, and the price goes up afterwards, you should have waited. If you sell at a price, and the price goes down afterwards, the buyer should have waited.
Now regarding your comment, if you could, mathematically, keep the option chain going on. Note that this is very specific to the actual question you asked (and I didn't want to get into these details before, as my answer was basically "You should not dwell in what happened before", so those details wouldn't matter - but maybe they give you an idea what you would get into):
To get a higher premium to pay for the previous buy-to-close, you can either lower the strike price or make the option last longer (except for very weird scenarios with very high negative interest rates).
The limit will be a strike of $0 (and duration not being relevant for reasonable time frames), for which you should get the current stock price (minus spread and fees).
At this point, you lost, as you don't get any money anymore from the option being an option, e.g. no premium apart from the value of the underlying stock.In theory, you can only reach that points due to a) spread b) fees c) the stock price rising.
To limit a), you could check if it's worth to let the option get executed instead of buying them back (unless you do it with a profit cause the stock price is lower): as you pay more for buy-to-close than you get for the same sell-to-open, you lose on every iteration. Please compare buy and sell for same strike and duration (the effect gets stronger for longer durations) to get an idea how much it is. This forces you to lower the strike on every iteration (down to 0, where it ends). If you let it execute and then buy back at the stock market, you limit that effect to fees of buying the stock, which should be lower (which you should check, though).
The fees on the option itself become a problem the deeper you get in-the-money, as the premium (minus the strike difference) becomes lower. As long as the premium is higher than the fee, you will, if you have unlimited time, get even at some point. You will however get deeper in-the-money if the stock price rises c). In your assumption, this doesn't happen, but that is the risk in your strategy.
c) If the stock price rises between sell and buy (or execute), you lose value. For deep in-the-money options, the dependency (delta) is almost 1:1. Nevertheless, vice-versa, you would profit if the stock price declines between selling and closing the option. But you should be aware that, for deep in-the-money options, the movement is almost the same as if you would trade with the original stock - but with all the complications and fees that options bring with them.
So, again, make sure you understand what you would be getting into if you try running after the lost money/stocks.
So maybe, and that's the last frame challenge, just be happy that the remaining stocks more than doubled their value, and think about what price you would like to sell them at. Since the most likely way that you will get your stocks back (in your lifetime) by your option strategy is if the price drops (a lot), and you can buy them back at $130. But then your remaining stocks will have lost more than half of their current value. In hindsight, you will probably know what will have been best.
