It's not possible. You killed this possibility yourself with the stipulation:
"a species that is very much like humans in shape, size and physiology"
No species on Earth that meets this stipulation has a need for staring at the sun for long periods. Not a survival need, which means that evolution could not, by definition, EVER act to produce such an individual ANYWHERE on ANY PLANET.
IF you remove that stipulation and say something like "a species that LOOKS like humans but has a completely oddball physiology that for some inane reason requires staring at the sun" then yes, you could create some evolutionary issue that might produce this.
But I have to warn you - staring at a bright light source for a long time leaves that individual vulnerable to predators. So if for example you created a specie that had to "charge up by staring at the sun" for an hour every day - then that specie would quickly be eliminated because some OTHER specie on that planet would rapidly evolve the ability to NOT have to stare at the sun - so that they could run up and kill off and eat the specie that did have to stare at the sun in the morning while it was busy doing it.
By extension this applies to staring at ANYTHING for a long period of time. Not just the sun.
This is why when mammals evolved they out competed the reptiles and killed most reptile species off - because they could kill and eat the reptiles in the early morning when the reptile was still sluggish and warming itself. Thus the adage "early bird gets the worm" (this is an "idea evolvement" that created the phrase which in a general sense means that if you go out hunting early in the morning you are more apt to catch prey that is still sluggish in the morning. Worms are no more accessible to birds in the early morning than anytime else in the day)
The requirement for not moving and staring at something for a long time or doing something for a long time is an evolutionary disadvantage and once Nature figured out how to dispense with that, the individuals who didn't have that restriction killed off all the individuals that did. It's why we invented Drive Thrus, son. ;-)
What you have to keep in mind is this - when using the "rules of nature" that are in force on Earth you must remember that humans are the end result of hundreds of millions of years of evolution following those rules - and we are very very successful, if not the most successful specie. So you have a VERY high bar to use those rules to produce a "human-like" specie that is going to have significant differences from real humans. Nature has been working on it for hundreds of millions of years and we is what she came up with. So no triple-breasted women, sorry!!!
Earth couldn't even keep 2 separate "human-like" species going - Homo-Sapiens and Neanderthals - for much more then a couple hundred thousand years before the evolutionary advantage of Homo-Sapiens killed them off.
If you want to say "Earth's rules of nature" are absolutes anywhere in the Universe then in order to get something significantly different than a human you are going to have to fundamentally alter the environment - make the planet bigger or remove most carbon or something of that nature - in which case you CANNOT naturally evolve ANY specie that is going to be "like humans" in physiology.
One of my favorite SF authors is Harry Harrison and in his Deathworld trilogy he took wonderful liberties describing Meta as among the most beautiful woman the protagonist had ever seen - the extra heavy gravity brought out her firm strap-like muscles and so on - in reality the most successful female on Deathworld would have been a squat, fat, tremendously muscled apish female that waddled around.
But it was fun to read so don't let my throwing cold water on the idea dissuade you! :-)