Last summer, media outlets around the world once again sensationalized a piece of news: the image on the Shroud is an artistic work created using a bas-relief. The claim came from Brazilian Cicero Moraes. The problem is that Moraes is not a Shroud specialist and has never worked on studies of the Holy Linen. He is known only for his computer-generated three-dimensional reconstructions of the faces of various historical figures. Even with the Shroud, Moraes limited himself to a computer reconstruction of the image “using open-source (and free) software available for download,” as he candidly admits.

The issue arose because his theories were published in the prestigious scientific journal *Archaeometry* as if they were a proper scientific study. A group of Shroud scholars therefore felt compelled to denounce this latest pseudo-scientific hypothesis in the same journal. Moraes later replied, but without providing any valid arguments to support his theory. I discussed the matter with Emanuela Marinelli, who had previously refuted, along with other experts and again in *Archaeometry*, the validity of the radiocarbon dating of the Shroud.

– Dr. Marinelli, why did Shroud scholars react to Moraes’ hypothesis?
– Because it was published in a scientific journal even though it does not meet the requirements of actual scientific work. Moraes merely produced a computer reconstruction of the image and failed to take into account all the aspects of the Shroud. He does not consider that the Shroud is a linen cloth bearing various micro-traces, such as Middle Eastern pollen, aloe, myrrh, and aragonite identical to that found in the caves of Jerusalem. It also contains human blood left by the corpse that was wrapped in the cloth, and an image formed by the extremely superficial oxidation and dehydration of the cellulose in the fabric, which occurred *after* the blood had already stained the cloth. None of this interests Moraes, so he dares to claim that the Shroud image was created in the Middle Ages.

– What is unconvincing about Moraes’ reconstruction?
– Many things. First of all, looking at the images attached to the study, the simulations were carried out only for the frontal part and not for the dorsal (back) part. This is significant: if one is to believe the hypothesis of a mysterious, unknown medieval forger genius, one must ask how he could have produced a bas-relief with the characteristics of *both* the front and back imprints. The author also makes a gross error in creating the model by “superimposing the right foot over the left and the right hand over the left, whereas in reality the body is positioned exactly the opposite.” He justifies this by saying that “this approach simplifies the creation of the visual material.”

Moraes hypothesizes the use of a bas-relief. This is an idea that has already been disproven: no technique has ever demonstrated that a bas-relief can produce an image with the same chemical-physical characteristics as the Shroud image. Not to mention that the Shroud shows no traces of any kind of pigments, and an image produced by a heated bas-relief would be fluorescent—unlike the Shroud’s image.

Moraes’ superficiality is evident in the fact that for his computer simulation model of the Shroud, he used “generic cotton.” One should remind him that the Shroud is made of linen, not cotton. In any case, he conducted no real experiments.

– Moraes doesn’t even address the problem of the bloodstains on the Shroud…
– It is a fundamental issue that no theory of an artisanal origin for the Shroud image can explain. The bloodstains found on the Shroud prevented the formation of the image beneath them. In other words, the blood first passed from the body of the deceased to the Shroud cloth, and *only afterward* did the process that formed the Shroud image occur.

– Why do the world’s media give so much space to these pseudo-scientific hypotheses that are supposed to disprove the authenticity of the Shroud? Moreover, why are mainstream media so interested in doing so?
– This recurring refrain about the alleged falsity of the Shroud image is this time based on work that lacks scientific rigor and proves only one thing: the Holy Linen is an annoyance in circles that are allergic to Christ. The Shroud disturbs those who want to free themselves of that uncomfortable presence which challenges and upsets anyone who does not want to acknowledge its authenticity—so as not to encounter Christ in their own life.

* https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/arcm.70109

** https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/arcm.70112

*  *  * https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/arcm.12467

***

More information:

https://www.vaticannews.va/en/church/news/2026-02/shroud-turin-medieval-bas-relief-hypothesis-challenged.html

https://newdailycompass.com/en/an-insignificant-study-attempts-to-discredit-holy-shroud

https://newdailycompass.com/en/turin-shroud-formed-by-a-bas-relief-same-old-hoax