The faithful see the Face of Jesus in the Shroud of Turin. A study now says it’s something else.

Here’s what you’ll learn when you read this story:

• A recent study offers new insight into the origin of an object known as the Shroud of Turin.

• Many consider the sheet to be a holy relic, marked with the impression of a dying person they believe to be Jesus Christ.

• Using open-source 3D modeling software, a researcher showed that if the canvas had actually been placed on a real human being, the impression it left would have looked significantly different from what is actually on the sheet.

This story is a collaboration with Biography.com.

The Shroud of Turin has been the subject of fascination for believers and skeptics alike since its existence was first recorded in the 14th century.^th century.

The canvas in question appears to depict the face and body of an adult man with long hair and a beard – very similar to the style in which Jesus Christ was traditionally depicted from around 6.^th century AD This contour, although barely visible to the naked eye, becomes undeniable when viewed in a photographic negative. As such, there is no doubt now that the face people see on the Shroud of Turin is indeed a deliberate representation, rather than a trick of the eye, as other ecstatic religious visions can sometimes prove to be. The question, instead, is how that impression got there in the first place.

Now, thanks to a determined researcher and some open-source software, they may have finally found the answer.

Those who believe in the authenticity of the relic suggest that it was the very cloth wrapped around the body of Jesus after his crucifixion, and its divine nature left this eternal impression of his face.

But objections have long been raised against this assumption—and not just in the secular space. Perhaps the most famous denunciation of the Shroud of Turin came from John Calvin, the 16th^th-French theologian of the century who became the namesake of Calvinism. In his Treatise on Relicshe responds almost mockingly to claims of the Shroud’s divine origins by asking:

“How is it possible that those sacred historians, who have carefully related all the miracles which took place at the death of Christ, should have omitted to mention one so remarkable as the likeness of our Lord’s body remaining on its wrapping sheet? This fact was doubtless worthy of record.”

Calvin cites several biblical reasons why this could not have happened – from the fact that none of the disciples ever mentioned seeing such an impression on the shroud, to the fact that the Roman soldiers were not exactly on friendly terms with Christ’s followers, so it is unlikely that they would have let them run off with such a sacred object. Furthermore, he notes, St. John said that Jesus was buried “according to the custom of the Jews.” If this had actually been the case, the body and head would have been wrapped in two separate cloths, not one.

“In short,” Calvin concluded, “…either St. John is a liar, or all who boast that they possess the holy sudar are condemned for falsehood and deceit.”

Calvin did not go so far as to propose an alternative theory. Maybe he didn’t want to speculate. Perhaps he was simply too busy to spend time on the subject—he had plenty of writing to do (and at least one soon-to-be-fired heretic to testify against).

Or maybe he just didn’t have access to open-source software like Blender.

Fortunately, Cicero Moraes—a researcher and 3D designer from Brazil—had that software handy. And he used it to test a theory first postulated by Walter McCrone in the 1980s: that the image on the Shroud of Turin is not an impression at all, but rather “an inspired painting,” made perhaps in part using low-relief carving rather than a full three-dimensional figure.

At the heart of this theory is an idea: if the canvas received its cues from a three-dimensional figure, the image of the face and body would appear flattened and distorted on the unfolded canvas.

To demonstrate this, Moraes created a model in MakeHuman software under the parameters “male, adult, ≈33 years old, thin and ≈1.80 m tall”. He then transferred that model into the free, open-source software Blender to refine the details to match the figure on the Shroud of Turin.

Moraes then compared how a fabric wrapped around that three-dimensional pattern would look (compared to one placed on a relief sculpture) and what kind of pattern both would leave.

Moraes’ models demonstrated that when a three-dimensional object leaves marks on a piece of material, those marks “generate a structure that is more robust and deformed relative to the source.” What you see when you look at an impression made of a human face on a piece of material is a flattening of a three-dimensional object.

If you were to take, say, a globe, smear it with ink, and wrap a cloth around it, when you unfolded that sheet, you would find an image that looked much different than the rounded shape of the globe.

But if you’d rather not soil your perfectly good orb, you can just watch the video Moraes made to accompany his study notes. Anyone can test this for themselves by covering their face with a pigmented liquid and placing a cloth or paper towel over it.

Details of Moraes’ findings were published in an article for Archaeometryincluding acknowledgment of all software used by Moraes. It is concluded that the image on the Shroud of Turin is almost certainly a work of medieval art, rather than an authentic impression of a dying man.

You may also like