This strongly depends on your definition of "Life".
The most common definition is the biological-life in which living systems always depend on nucleic acides.
Since there is no unequivocal definition of life, the current understanding is descriptive. Life is considered a characteristic of something that exhibits all or most of the following traits .. (click link for further information) - Wikipedia - Life/Definition
There are theories of lifeforms which do not depend on carbon (As we do).
But while reading these theories, you'll notice that those who set up these theories, tried to recreate life as we know on different chemistry but did't really looked "how life else could work".
For example, I remember this one episode (Dont know the #, sry) of Star Trek - The next generation in which they met a giant crystal which was floating in space. This crystal had some kind of consciousness and had to consume energy to stay alive. In the episode the creature consumed the warp-field or something, not sure. But you see the point I guess.
I do not think life has to be 'biological' as we know.
My personal definition of life, which doesn't really go against the common one (due there is none), is that living things have these:
- consciousness (doesn't mean awareness of themself, but can)
- ability to consume and create things ( as like metabolism )
- ability to replicate under specific circumstances
According to this and Abiogenesis in theory life could develop almost everywhere. The point why it does not is the razerblade problem. Try to stack several razerblades on each other,... they'll collapse. Just under rare circumstances it's possible that they do not, and that's probably the point of life.
We already found amino acids on asteroids, so this concept is not that hypotetical, even if it's not proven at the point.
If you look at the lowest developed animals or bacteria we know, like Trichoplax (which btw is different than any other animal we know), you will find structures and metabolism which are really basic and oftn don't need atmosphere to work.
So the atmosphere itself is not the problem, the pressure isn't either due a evolution in space-low pressure literally evovles with this pressure.
A lack of nutrient isn't probable too. Look at corals and other sessility animals you'll see that they do not, or almost not, need any nutrients to "stay alive" but to grow and replicate. This principe supports life in areas where almost no nutrients exist like in space. (Even in space, there are particles which could be consumed).
So, if you accept this definitions, nothing stops you from creating any fictional form of life which fit's this requierements.
And as always, stay plausible and keep causality up.
Life only depending on light is implausible. Just as said before, your lifeform must create matter out of light wich seems to be impossible.
But as I said, even in space there are atoms and molecules which could be used as nutrients, even if they're very rare.
This means your direct question must be answered with NO, but with a slight change it is possible.