![\"sindone](\"https:\/\/www.uccronline.it\/eng\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/shroud_sculpture_errores.webp\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
The Shroud<\/strong> was allegedly not laid over a body but over a bas-relief sculpture<\/strong>. This is the “new” theory proposed by Brazilian designer Cicero Moraes<\/strong>, but it is riddled with errors that undermine its methodological validity.<\/i><\/p>\n <\/p>\n The Shroud<\/strong><\/mark> of Turin, it is claimed, was not laid over a body but over a bas-relief sculpture<\/strong>.<\/p>\n This theory comes from a Brazilian designer named Cicero Moraes<\/strong><\/mark>, known for his 3D reconstructions of the faces of many historical figures.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n \n The study was published just a few days ago in “Archaeometry<\/a>“<\/i><\/strong>, and journalists are copy-pasting each other<\/strong> in their sensationalist coverage of the story.<\/p>\n However, the theory has been circulating since late 2024<\/a><\/em><\/strong>, when Moraes’ experiment\u2014then unpublished\u2014was presented as a “response”<\/strong> to the study by Italy’s National Research Council’s Institute of Crystallography (CNR), which made global headlines.<\/p>\n The Italian researchers, led by Liberato De Caro<\/b>, compared<\/a><\/em><\/strong> the cellulose degradation<\/strong> of the linen in the Shroud with that of other cloths found in Israel dating back to the 1st century, finding a full match.<\/p>\n While yesterday the media ran with headlines like “The Holy Shroud dates back to Jesus\u2019 time”<\/em>, today those same outlets proclaim: “Medieval origin confirmed”<\/em>.<\/p>\n It also seems suspicious<\/strong> that the study was published precisely to coincide<\/strong> with a major international conference<\/a><\/em><\/strong> on the Holy Shroud currently being held in Missouri.<\/p>\n This was pointed out to us by Alessandro Piana<\/a><\/strong>, UCCR contributor and one of Italy\u2019s leading experts on the Shroud.<\/p>\n He was already familiar with Moraes\u2019 conclusions, so we asked him for a detailed analysis<\/strong> to assess the actual value of this investigation.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n \n The Brazilian designer used free software<\/strong> to digitally simulate in 3D the dynamics of the fabric and map the contact area.<\/p>\n He then compared<\/strong> two scenarios: the projection of a three-dimensional human model and that of a bas-relief model.<\/p>\n According to his findings, the contact pattern generated by the bas-relief model is more consistent<\/strong> with the Shroud image, showing less anatomical distortion and greater fidelity to the observed contours.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n \n The first issue<\/strong> raised by Alessandro Piana is that the analysis does not address the physical and chemical elements<\/strong> related to the formation of the Shroud image. The focus is strictly methodological, centered on digital modeling and the comparative evaluation of contact patterns.<\/p>\n In doing so, the designer created a 3D model with human features, male, 1.80m tall, based on \u201cadjustments\u201d<\/strong> to Giuseppe Enrie\u2019s<\/strong> 1931 photographs.<\/p>\n Why didn\u2019t he use the much more modern 2002 photographs by Gian Carlo Durante<\/strong>?<\/p>\n Beard and hair were added to the model, while the eyes, nose, mouth, chest and other features were slightly modified<\/strong> to match the target individual, using digital deformation tools to approximate the model\u2019s facial structure to that of the Shroud image.<\/p>\n Judging by the images attached to the study, the simulations were run only on the front side<\/strong>, not the back<\/strong>. Why?<\/p>\n This is a crucial omission<\/strong>: if one is to believe in the idea of a brilliant and unknown medieval forger, one must ask how he could have produced a bas-relief that reflects both the front and back imprint.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n \n But, \u201cthe strangest and most absurd thing,\u201d<\/i> Piana tells us, is that the author commits a blatant error<\/strong> in the model\u2019s creation: \u201cplacing the right foot over the left and the right hand over the left, whereas in reality the body is exactly the opposite<\/strong>.\u201d<\/i><\/p>\n This clearly contradicts the Shroud: the photographic negative<\/strong> of the Shroud, showing how the body was laid in the cloth, reveals that the left foot overlaps the right (as it was nailed during crucifixion), and the left hand rests over the right.<\/p>\n The author defended himself by saying that \u201cthis approach simplifies<\/strong> the creation of visual material, focusing on the contact behavior as related to the most well-known Shroud photos.\u201d<\/i><\/p>\n So, Piana notes, in order to stay true to the photos of the Shroud, Moraes builds a model that is the exact opposite<\/strong> of the Shroud.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n \n Another oddity is the author’s statement that \u201ccomparing the 3D model with the 2D image reveals a general similarity<\/strong>.\u201d<\/i> In a scientific study, \u201cgeneral similarity\u201d may be insufficient<\/strong>.<\/p>\n The fact that Cicero Moraes likely knows little about the Shroud<\/strong> and the decades of research on it is evident in his claim that the bas-relief<\/strong> used as a matrix \u201ccould have been made of wood, stone or metal, and pigmented<\/strong> or even heated<\/strong> only in the contact areas, generating the observed imprint.\u201d<\/i><\/p>\n Yet this theory has been debunked<\/strong> countless times since 1978, whether regarding pigment or heat. No technique has ever demonstrated<\/strong> that a bas-relief can produce a Shroud-like imprint with similar chemical and physical properties.<\/p>\n Moreover, there are no traces<\/strong> of pigments on the Shroud, and any image created by a heated bas-relief would be fluorescent<\/strong>\u2014unlike the Shroud image.<\/p>\n Unsurprisingly, Moraes himself is forced to concede<\/a><\/em><\/strong> that it is still possible<\/strong>, however remotely, that the Shroud \u201ccould be the imprint of a three-dimensional human body.\u201d<\/i><\/p>\n But the author\u2019s blunders<\/strong> don\u2019t stop there.<\/p>\n He even admitted<\/a><\/em><\/strong> that the simulation model used for the Shroud was configured as a dynamic fabric \u201cusing settings for generic cotton<\/strong>.\u201d<\/i> Someone should inform him that the Shroud is made of linen, not cotton.<\/p>\n And then there’s the recurring obstacle that thwarts such theories: the bloodstains on the Shroud prevented the image from forming<\/strong> underneath them. That is, the blood transferred from the deceased\u2019s body to the cloth first, and only afterward<\/strong> did the Shroud image appear.<\/p>\n Another unresolved issue, Piana adds, is that this hypothetical forger would have had to find aloe, myrrh, and even pollens<\/strong> from plants that grow only in specific parts of the world\u2014such as Zygophyllum dumosum<\/i>, found only in the Sinai Peninsula and the Holy Land.<\/p>\n The pollen spectrum<\/strong> identified on the Shroud supports major theories about its origin: Holy Land, Turkey, continental and peninsular Europe.<\/p>\n Lastly, there\u2019s the historical trail<\/strong>, which provides evidence<\/a><\/em><\/strong> of the Shroud\u2019s existence as early as 1203<\/strong>, when\u2014during the Fourth Crusade\u2014French knight Robert de Clari saw it in Constantinople.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n \n Moraes\u2019 study<\/strong>, while visually interesting, adds little of value and instead seems to confirm a familiar pattern<\/strong>: whenever new data supports the Shroud\u2019s historical authenticity, weak but media-hyped counter-narratives<\/strong> promptly emerge.<\/p>\n In the end, the debate continues not because the Shroud is understudied, but because none of the \u201cskeptical\u201d hypotheses<\/strong> has ever managed to replicate\u2014even remotely\u2014all of its features.<\/p>\n The only ones who came close were the physicists at ENEA<\/strong> in Frascati, who managed for the first time<\/a><\/em><\/strong> to create a coloration similar to that of the Shroud using a powerful excimer laser.<\/p>\n Those who truly seek the truth should start here.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n \n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" The Shroud was allegedly laid on a bas-relief sculpture. This is the “new” thesis by designer Cicero Moraes, but it is full of errors<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":61688,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"iawp_total_views":1149,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1680,2],"tags":[1638,1636,1637],"class_list":["post-61687","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-alessandro-piana","category-news","tag-shroud-scientific-research","tag-shroud-sculpture","tag-shroud-studies"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n
\nThe Media Operation<\/h2>\n<\/p>\n
The Shroud Spread Over a Sculpture<\/h2>\n<\/p>\n
Cicero Moraes’ Odd and Suspicious Choices<\/h2>\n<\/p>\n
The Shroud, the Sculpture, and the Blatant Error<\/h2>\n<\/p>\n
Blunders, Errors, and Overlooked Elements<\/h2>\n<\/p>\n
The Shroud Laid on a Sculpture: Nothing New<\/h2>\n<\/p>\n
\nFollow the author’s blog SHROUD insights<\/a><\/mark><\/i><\/b><\/h3>\n<\/p>\n