Revival was a false proposition.
What was the definition of revival?
The physical body?
Or the soul?
If revival was defined by the physical body, then revival was nothing more than using extraordinary power to create a flesh-and-blood puppet. As long as the extraordinary power within you was sufficient, you could create as many flesh-and-blood puppets as you wished. After all, the process itself was not especially sophisticated. Once learned, it was not difficult—nothing more than a construct of fats, proteins, carbohydrates, and other substances. As long as one understood how humans conceived children, replicating the process would not be hard.
Therefore, revival was not defined by the physical body.
But if revival was defined by the soul...
Then this was far more troublesome than one might imagine...
Because the core of the question shifted from the definition of revival to the definition of the soul. What exactly was the essence of a soul?
Was it some intangible spiritual power?
Or memories stored within the organs?
If someone lost their memories, how could they prove that they were still themselves?
If, at the exact same time, another person had all their memories erased and was then implanted with the memories of the amnesiac person, then who, exactly, would that person be considered?
Thus, the theory of memory could first be ruled out.
After all, memories could be altered.
Using memories to determine whether someone was themselves made a certain degree of sense from one perspective, but it fell apart from every other angle.
A logic that could not justify itself was clearly wrong from the outset.
Yet after dismissing the theory of memory, the notion of spiritual power was equally vulnerable.
How could one determine that a mass of spiritual power with no certain ownership belonged to a particular person?