International Shroud of Turin Center Disputes Claim of Latest Study that Questions Authenticity of the Cloth
An artist from Brazil, named Cicero Moraes, claims in a recent scholarly journal Archaeometry that the image of Christ’s body on the shroud was probably made by a “low-relief model” such as a statue. However, the International Centre for Studies on the Shroud in Turin, which is statutorily entrusted with providing scientific support to the Custodian, has released a document offering a detailed examination of the methods and conclusions of this alleged “discovery.”
The Archbishop of Turin, Card. Roberto Repole writes, "yet again, new so-called “revelations” about the Shroud and its mysteries are being circulated. This time, the claim is that the Shroud was not laid upon the body of a man, but rather over an artificial “model” designed to replicate the characteristics of the image."
The Pontifical Custodian of the Shroud sees no reason to engage directly with hypotheses put forward whether by recognised experts or by others outside the framework of serious, peer-reviewed research. The International Centre for Studies on the Shroud in Turin, which is statutorily entrusted with providing scientific support to the Custodian, has released a document offering a detailed examination of the methods and conclusions of this alleged “discovery” (see attached statement).
While we cannot be too surprised by the hype that certain “news” whether true or plausible, new or old, can generate in a global and instantaneous media circuit, there remains concern about the superficiality of certain conclusions, which often do not stand up to careful examination of the work presented. And we must reiterate the invitation to never lose sight of the necessary critical attention to what is so easily published.
+ Roberto card. Repole
Archbishop of Turin, Bishop of Susa
Pontifical Custodian of the Shroud
RELEASE : Analysis of the article “Image formation on the Holy Shroud – A digital 3D
approach” by Cicero Moraes
August 2025
The author created 3D models of a human body and a bas-relief, using open-source software and physical simulations to analyze the contact points between a cloth and the surfaces. The result indicates that the contact points between cloth and bas-relief correspond to a less distorted image compared to the contact points with a three- dimensional body, as the latter generates the so-called “Mask of Agamemnon” distortion effect, well known in the literature. In other words, in Figure 6 of the article the author confirms a result known since the early studies of Vignon and Delage in 1902, namely that the Shroud image appears as an orthogonal projection. There is nothing new in this conclusion. Furthermore, starting from the in situ studies carried out by the STuRP team (1978) and subsequent chemical-physical analyses, the formation of the image by painting, rubbing with a bas-relief, or contact with a heated statue/bas-relief has been ruled out. In summary, the article’s result concerning the absence of the Mask of Agamemnon effect and the vertical projection of the Shroud image has been known for over a century, and the author’s consequent hypothesis of a painted or scorched origin from contact with a bas-relief is amply contradicted by numerous physico-chemical studies first and foremost those of STuRP confirmed by more recent measurements, for which there is extensive literature in accredited scientific journals.
The International Center for Shroud Studies (CISS) reiterates the importance of a rigorous
and interdisciplinary approach that clearly distinguishes between established facts and
hypotheses, integrating the results of all the disciplines involved.
Further remarks
The tools and formats used in the article analized are among those commonly employed in 3D modeling. Blender, for example, is a reliable software for producing multimedia
and creative content, but it is not specifically designed for scientific purposes. The physics
engine used to simulate the behavior of the cloth on the three-dimensional model operates according to models that mimic gravity and the adaptation of fabric to a surface represented by the 3D body.
This setup assumes that the cloth was draped over the body, but the digital model does not include a support plane: beneath the body there is empty space, as if it were suspended.
Such a condition affects the simulated behavior of the fabric and does not correspond to a real physical context. Introducing a rigid plane on which the body rested would have
significantly altered the result.
The “OrtoOnBlender” tool, used to generate the bas-relief, is described by the author as
central to the process. Previous experiences (Balossino–Rabellino) with similar technologies have shown that results are sensitive to the properties of the simulated fabric, varying from “rigid” to “soft” behavior depending on the parameters set. The repeatability of a procedure is a necessary but not sufficient condition to validate its correctness an aspect on which the article insists, but which in itself does not guarantee the scientific validity of the conclusions.
Such simulations, while interesting and potentially effective for educational or
multimedia purposes, face significant challenges in being regarded as scientific proof, let alone conclusive proof.
The discussion touches on a well-known and still open topic: the nature of the Shroud
image projection. The shift from a cylindrical projection (cloth wrapped around the body,
with inevitable lateral distortions absent on the cloth) to an orthogonal projection (vertical
transfer of details, with minimal distortion, yet unable to explain the image’s presence in
non-contact areas) has significant implications for formation hypotheses.
Digital models can contribute to the discussion, but they do not replace the physical and chemical analysis of the relic, which has so far excluded compatibility of the image with painting methods, contact with a bas-relief, or scorching from a hot bas-relief.
On a methodological level, the CISS considers the following fundamental:
A strict distinction between established facts and hypotheses, avoiding presenting as certain any statements not yet demonstrated.
Interdisciplinary collaboration, integrating and respecting the results of all the disciplines involved, and avoiding partial or sector-based interpretations.
As Nobel Prize laureate Richard Feynman reminded us:
“If you're doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it
invalid -not only what you think is right about it- (…) If you make a theory and advertise it, or
put it out, then you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well as those that agree with it (...) The idea is to try to give all of the information to help others to judge the
value of your contribution; not just the information that leads to judgment in one particular direction or another. (...) The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”
R.P. FEYNMAN, R. LEIGHTON: Surely you're joking, Mr. Feynman! (W.W. Norton & Co., New York, London, 1985).
The Archbishop of Turin, Card. Roberto Repole writes, "yet again, new so-called “revelations” about the Shroud and its mysteries are being circulated. This time, the claim is that the Shroud was not laid upon the body of a man, but rather over an artificial “model” designed to replicate the characteristics of the image."
The Pontifical Custodian of the Shroud sees no reason to engage directly with hypotheses put forward whether by recognised experts or by others outside the framework of serious, peer-reviewed research. The International Centre for Studies on the Shroud in Turin, which is statutorily entrusted with providing scientific support to the Custodian, has released a document offering a detailed examination of the methods and conclusions of this alleged “discovery” (see attached statement).
While we cannot be too surprised by the hype that certain “news” whether true or plausible, new or old, can generate in a global and instantaneous media circuit, there remains concern about the superficiality of certain conclusions, which often do not stand up to careful examination of the work presented. And we must reiterate the invitation to never lose sight of the necessary critical attention to what is so easily published.
+ Roberto card. Repole
Archbishop of Turin, Bishop of Susa
Pontifical Custodian of the Shroud
RELEASE : Analysis of the article “Image formation on the Holy Shroud – A digital 3D
approach” by Cicero Moraes
August 2025
The author created 3D models of a human body and a bas-relief, using open-source software and physical simulations to analyze the contact points between a cloth and the surfaces. The result indicates that the contact points between cloth and bas-relief correspond to a less distorted image compared to the contact points with a three- dimensional body, as the latter generates the so-called “Mask of Agamemnon” distortion effect, well known in the literature. In other words, in Figure 6 of the article the author confirms a result known since the early studies of Vignon and Delage in 1902, namely that the Shroud image appears as an orthogonal projection. There is nothing new in this conclusion. Furthermore, starting from the in situ studies carried out by the STuRP team (1978) and subsequent chemical-physical analyses, the formation of the image by painting, rubbing with a bas-relief, or contact with a heated statue/bas-relief has been ruled out. In summary, the article’s result concerning the absence of the Mask of Agamemnon effect and the vertical projection of the Shroud image has been known for over a century, and the author’s consequent hypothesis of a painted or scorched origin from contact with a bas-relief is amply contradicted by numerous physico-chemical studies first and foremost those of STuRP confirmed by more recent measurements, for which there is extensive literature in accredited scientific journals.
The International Center for Shroud Studies (CISS) reiterates the importance of a rigorous
and interdisciplinary approach that clearly distinguishes between established facts and
hypotheses, integrating the results of all the disciplines involved.
Further remarks
The tools and formats used in the article analized are among those commonly employed in 3D modeling. Blender, for example, is a reliable software for producing multimedia
and creative content, but it is not specifically designed for scientific purposes. The physics
engine used to simulate the behavior of the cloth on the three-dimensional model operates according to models that mimic gravity and the adaptation of fabric to a surface represented by the 3D body.
This setup assumes that the cloth was draped over the body, but the digital model does not include a support plane: beneath the body there is empty space, as if it were suspended.
Such a condition affects the simulated behavior of the fabric and does not correspond to a real physical context. Introducing a rigid plane on which the body rested would have
significantly altered the result.
The “OrtoOnBlender” tool, used to generate the bas-relief, is described by the author as
central to the process. Previous experiences (Balossino–Rabellino) with similar technologies have shown that results are sensitive to the properties of the simulated fabric, varying from “rigid” to “soft” behavior depending on the parameters set. The repeatability of a procedure is a necessary but not sufficient condition to validate its correctness an aspect on which the article insists, but which in itself does not guarantee the scientific validity of the conclusions.
Such simulations, while interesting and potentially effective for educational or
multimedia purposes, face significant challenges in being regarded as scientific proof, let alone conclusive proof.
The discussion touches on a well-known and still open topic: the nature of the Shroud
image projection. The shift from a cylindrical projection (cloth wrapped around the body,
with inevitable lateral distortions absent on the cloth) to an orthogonal projection (vertical
transfer of details, with minimal distortion, yet unable to explain the image’s presence in
non-contact areas) has significant implications for formation hypotheses.
Digital models can contribute to the discussion, but they do not replace the physical and chemical analysis of the relic, which has so far excluded compatibility of the image with painting methods, contact with a bas-relief, or scorching from a hot bas-relief.
On a methodological level, the CISS considers the following fundamental:
A strict distinction between established facts and hypotheses, avoiding presenting as certain any statements not yet demonstrated.
Interdisciplinary collaboration, integrating and respecting the results of all the disciplines involved, and avoiding partial or sector-based interpretations.
As Nobel Prize laureate Richard Feynman reminded us:
“If you're doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it
invalid -not only what you think is right about it- (…) If you make a theory and advertise it, or
put it out, then you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well as those that agree with it (...) The idea is to try to give all of the information to help others to judge the
value of your contribution; not just the information that leads to judgment in one particular direction or another. (...) The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”
R.P. FEYNMAN, R. LEIGHTON: Surely you're joking, Mr. Feynman! (W.W. Norton & Co., New York, London, 1985).
https://www.sindone.it/en/2025/comunicato-stampa-moraes
Comments