Cryonics raises profound theological questions within the framework of religious beliefs of millions of people.
The theological questions that are raised by a notion as profound as reviving a cryogenically preserved human are not simple. These belong to such august bodies as the College Of Cardinals, the faculties of philosophy departments at respected universities, the Cosmopolitan and other Coptic theologians ... the credentialed and published theologians of our time. Among those who believe the soul leaves the body and proceeds as a sentient entity when the body dies, cryonics raises the ultimate in profound questions. These are not the realm of the local Deacon.
If cryonicists are someday successful, if a human who has been medically dead, with an internal temperature way below the freezing point of water, someday gets up and walks it will be stunning. If he is self aware and has his memory intact, it would seem at a glance to defy Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox beliefs. If he has the ability to do abstract reasoning (which is done in words, Jeff) it will establish his "soul" is present.
However, theology isn't done at a glance. If these things happen they may actually confirm the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth and they may confirm the words of John the Apostle, as written on the Island of Patmos, around the year 66 CE. That is, the whole body has been resurrected, is in perfect health, is incorruptable (handy things those nano-doohickies) and the soul has returned to it. This, then, would be John the Apostle's Kingdom Of God.
You cannot, ever, settle any part of the mandatory autopsy problem by appealing to Judeo-Christian theology. Nothing in such theology anticipates cryonics yet cryonics raises theological questions far too profound for a layman with a bible in one hand and a Roman Catholic Catechism in the other. The Nazarene may, himself, have anticipated cryonics; the great apologists and philosopher/theologians did not.