Turin Shroud does NOT show the face of Jesus, scientist claims – as virtual simulation shows the imprint on the fabric ‘could not have been made by a 3D human body’

The face on the Shroud of Turin cannot have come from Jesus’ head – and it is doubtful he ever touched it, an explosive new study suggests.

Marked with a faint impression of a body and face, the artifact is believed by many to be the actual cloth used to wrap Christ’s corpse after his crucifixion.

But its documented history does not begin until the mid-14th century, and it has been a source of skepticism for almost as long, with many dismissing it as a medieval forgery.

Now a new study has found that the imprint on the shroud could not have been made by a three-dimensional human body, but may have come from a bas-relief – a shallow carving.

To reach this conclusion, Cicero Moraes, author of the new study, created a virtual simulation in which a cloth was placed over a body in an attempt to recreate the famous shroud.

But the virtual tissue, when laid flat, showed “a distorted and significantly more robust image” than that on the shroud, due to the transition from 3D to 2D.

Only by repeating the process with a bas-relief instead of a body could an impression similar to that on the artifact be created, the study found.

Mr Moraes, a Brazilian forensic expert and 3D illustrator, said: ‘The explanation for the differences is very simple.

Cicero Moraes, author of the new study, created a virtual simulation involving placing a cloth over a body in an attempt to replicate the famous shroud

‘If you wrap a 3D object with a fabric, and that object leaves a pattern like blood stains, these stains generate a more robust and distorted structure in relation to the source.

‘So roughly speaking, what we see as a result of printing spots on a human body would be a more swollen and distorted version of it, and not an image that looks like a photocopy.

‘However, a bas-relief does not cause the image to distort, creating a figure that resembles a photocopy of the body.’

An image of the impression left by a 3D body shows the striking difference from the shroud.

The scalp and toes are strangely splayed outwards, while large parts of the torso, groin and neck areas are not captured at all, and the resemblance is generally very broad.

Meanwhile, the image of the impression left by a shallow bas-relief provides a good reproduction of the image of the shroud.

To illustrate, Mr. Moraes gave the example of the mask of Agamemnon, a golden death mask intended to be thrown from the face of the ancient Mycenaean king.

It appears too wide for a human face, but Mr Moraes said this was actually a normal distortion.

The virtual tissue, when laid flat, showed “a distorted and significantly more robust image” than that on the shroud, due to the transition from 3D to 2D

For centuries, Catholics have flocked to the Italian city of Turin to witness the famous shroud ceremony. The venerated piece of linen, which measures 4.5 by 9.5 meters, features a faint image of the front and back of a man – interpreted by many as Jesus Christ

He said: ‘Any careful adult can test this at home.

‘For example, by painting your face with some pigmented liquid, using a large napkin, paper towel or even cloth and wrapping it around your face,

‘Then take out the fabric, spread it out on a flat surface and look at the resulting image.

“This distortion is known as the ‘mask of Agamemnon’ effect, because it resembles that ancient artifact.”

Moraes is known for forensically reconstructing the faces of historical figures from their skulls.

He doubts that the shroud ever touched Jesus’ body.

“I think the possibility that this happened is very remote,” he said.

And while he is reluctant to write off the artifact as a forgery, he believes its qualities are artistic rather than historical.

Print marks of a human body are said to be ‘swollen and distorted’ (top), not an image that ‘looks like a photocopy’ (bottom)

The surprising research follows high-profile claims by a scientist that the object was indeed enveloping Jesus

He said: ‘People usually fall into two camps in debates.

‘On the one hand there are those who think it is an authentic shroud of Jesus Christ, on the other hand those who think it is a forgery.

‘But I tend towards a different approach: that it is in fact a Christian work of art, which has managed to convey its intended message very successfully.

‘It seems to me more of a non-verbal iconographic work that has very successfully served the purpose of the religious message contained in it.’

For centuries, Catholics have flocked to the Italian city of Turin to witness the famous shroud ceremony.

The venerated piece of linen, which measures 15 by 30 feet, features a faint image of the front and back of a man – interpreted by many as Jesus Christ.

Believers say it was used to wrap Christ’s body after his crucifixion, leaving his bloody imprint, like a photographic snapshot.

In the 1970s, microscopist Walter McCrone analyzed the shroud as part of the Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP).

Many think the Shroud of Turin (pictured) is the cloth in which Jesus’ body was wrapped after his death, but not all experts are convinced it is real.

The Bible says that Joseph of Arimathea wrapped Jesus’ body in a linen shroud and placed it in a tomb

He found that it had been dyed with pigments of red and vermilion in gelatin, and that there was no blood in the samples, although some of his STURP colleagues disputed his findings.

Radiocarbon tests in the 1980s also dated the shroud to the 13th or 14th century.

But this has also been questioned, with some saying the sample may have come from a later repair, or could have been contaminated in some way.

Professor Liberato De Caro, an academic and Catholic based in Bari, Italy, recently discovered that the object dates back 2,000 years to the time of Christ, discrediting previous research from the 1980s.

The Vatican itself, meanwhile, has taken different positions on the shroud at different times.

In 1390, Pope Clement VII declared it not authentic, but “a painting or panel made to represent or imitate the shroud,” but in 1506 Pope Julius II reversed course and declared it authentic after all.

Modern popes have spoken of it with reverence, but have generally failed to really explain it.

Mr. Moraes publishes his research in the Elsevier preprint repository, prior to formal academic publication.