3D image of Shroud of Turin man: This is what Jesus looks like!

Rate this post

In 2015, the scientific unit of the police force in Rome, Italy, used reverse aging software to generate the face of what the man in the Shroud of Turin would look like as a 12-year-old boy. (See “The angelic face of Jesus as a 12-year-old boy”)
He is breathtakingly beautiful.

Now, a professor of mechanical and thermal measurements at the University of Padua, Dr. Giulio Fanti, has created a 3D carbon copy of Jesus from meticulous measurements of the Shroud image.
It is of an “extraordinarily beautiful” man, muscular, with “regal” “majestic” features, and nearly 6 feet tall — 7 inches taller than the average man in the Mediterranean region at the time.

Maria Teresa Martinengo reports for La Stampa (Google Translate), March 20, 2018 that Giulio Fanti leads a team of scientists who have studied the Shroud of Turin for years with the most sophisticated technologies available to science.
Based on the scientists’ measurements of the image on the Shroud, the master sculptor Sergio Rodella created a statue in plaster.
3D image of man in the Shroud
Professor Fanti explains:

“Christian tradition believes that the image that is seen on the Shroud is that of the crucified Jesus. And now science is of this opinion too. For years, using the most sophisticated 3D technologies, we have studied  the image left by the body on the sheet. And the statue is the final result.
This statue is a life-size, three-dimensional representation of the Man of the Shroud, based on the millimetric measurements obtained from the shroud in which the body of Christ was wrapped after the crucifixion.
On the Shroud I counted 370 scourge wounds, without taking into consideration the lateral ones, which are not imprinted into the Shroud because it enveloped only the front and back of the body. We can therefore hypothesize Jesus suffered a total of at least 600 scourges. Moreover, the three-dimensional reconstruction has allowed us to reconstruct that at the time of death, the man of the Shroud has slumped to the right because His right shoulder was dislocated in such a severe way as to damage the nerves.
According to our studies, Jesus was a man of extraordinary beauty (“bellezza straordinaria”). Long-limbed, but very robust; almost six feet tall, while the average height of the time was around 5′ 5″; with a regal and majestic expression.
We therefore believe that we finally have an accurate picture of what Jesus was like on this earth. From now on, it will no longer be possible to portray His image without taking this work into account .”  

Jesus at 12 and 33 years old

H/t Daily Caller and FOTM‘s MCA
See also:


Please follow and like us:

0 responses to “3D image of Shroud of Turin man: This is what Jesus looks like!

  1. Jude MacAbaech

    No. If the man executed to make the image on the Shroud is of the exceptional appearance this team of scientists claims, then why was Judas paid 30 pieces of silver to point Jesus out to those arresting Him? Jesus conducted His ministry in a very public manner, so His appearance was known to thousands including those paying Judas his price. The only consistent with Scripture solution is that Jesus looked much like the average Jewish man in Roman occupied Judea roughly 2,000 years ago. The unfortunate man whose image is on the Shroud is most likely a victim of the religious relic frenzy during the Crusades.

  2. Ridiculous foolishness! The Bible clearly states Yeshua was not handsome. ISA 53:2 “For He shall grow up before Him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground. He hath no form nor comeliness, and when we shall see Him, there is no beauty that we should desire Him. ” He was from Galilee NOT European with the sharp Anglo features shown on the fake shroud. Would G-D leave an image for people to give devotion or worship to after what happened with the snake on the pole? I think not. Come out of Babylon (RCC)! You think G-D would encourage idolatry? https://www.letgodbetrue.com/bible/heresies/shroud.php

    • Wow, such rage! I feel sorry for you.
      Daily Caller’s Joshua Gill addressed your claim that Jesus was ugly.
      Fanti’s claims, however, challenge some popular interpretations of Christian scripture and statements from early Church Fathers concerning Jesus’s appearance. Scripture historians and scholars do not say Jesus was ugly or short, but they do say, according to scriptural descriptions like the one in Isaiah 53:2, which may or may not apply to Christ in a personal way, he was not especially attractive or tall.
      “In other words, Jesus may have looked fine and been of average height so far as Isaiah 53 is concerned. He just wasn’t super-handsome or super-tall,” National Catholic Register‘s Jimmy Akin said in reference to the writings of early Christian author Origen with regard to Isaiah 53.
      “There are, indeed, admitted to be recorded some statements respecting the body of Jesus having been ‘ill-favored’; not, however, ‘ignoble,’ as has been stated, nor is there any certain evidence that he was ‘little,’” Origen wrote in “Against Celsius.”
      “Ignoble” in the ancient world meant “ugly” and “little” meant an unimpressive physical stature, Akin explained. However, writings like that of St. John Chrysostom in Homilies on Matthew 27:2, interpret the statement in Isaiah 53:2 to be a comparison of Christ incarnate “with the glory of his godhead, which surpasses all utterance and description,” which would not pose a problem for Fanti’s statue or claims so far as Christian scripture is concerned, Akin noted.

    • traildustfotm

      J B, Isaiah 53 describes how the Messiah looked on the day He was crucified. After hours of beatings and scourging even the best looking person would look ugly. And why do you assume that we look to the shroud as an idol? The risk exists, but the unstable can even turn reliable verses of scripture into their own special form of heresy. I am convinced that this was left behind to encourage the church, especially in this very dark era.

      • Thank you, TrailDust.
        I believe that God planned this — that just when human’s science is eroding faith, new scientific technologies enable us to (1) decipher and determine the truth of the Shroud; (2) use reverse-aging technology for an image of Jesus as a 12-year-old boy; and (3) to generate from the Shroud image a 3D statue of our Lord.

        • Thank you Dr. Eowyn for this most magnificent post; I found it fascinating and wonderful. I remember learning about Josephus, the great historian who described Jesus as someone with stature, using words to that effect. It is an absolute mystery to me how the individuals who participated in their rages set out above, are able to make their idiotic and inappropriate responses, suggesting that what was found is a form of idolatry. What is your point with such an illogical allegation? Why aren’t you joyous that modern science and religion can work together to discover truth?
          I was refreshed and happy when I read Dr. Eowyn’s post, so appropriate for the Easter liturgical season. I am so glad that the scientific accomplishments reflect that Jesus was handsome, that he was tall and muscular. Why would anyone have a problem with the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity looking like this…amazing indeed. There has been so much effort having to defend these wonderful discoveries, wherein this should not be necessary, as we should be joyous of these discoveries.

          • You said it perfectly, Joan. I was overjoyed by the scientists’ 3D rendering of the man in the Shroud and wanted to share the good news. Indeed, it is wholly (pun intended!) appropriate that the incarnation of the Second Person of the Triune Godhead would be “extraordinarily beautiful”.

      • When and how did Isaiah, who lived 800 years before Christ, become an eye-witness who saw what Jesus looks like?

        • traildustfotm

          Isaiah 53 is one thrilling prediction of Christ. Just think how compelling that passage was to the Ethiopian who Philip explained it to in the Acts of the Apostles. I do wonder if Isaiah was allowed to see Jesus or if he was instead receiving the words as he wrote, and had to imagine for himself what they meant. I am inclined to think the latter.

          • Hello dear traildust! Always good to read yr thoughtful comments.
            Now, insofar as Isaiah is concerned, I may have insights I can share. I’ve written here and in two essays that just as Christ is the greatest poet in the Bible [of all human history, imo], so is Isaiah the 2nd greatest, from what I’ve read of his remaining writings. There may have been more, but they were subject to damage. But we have enough to clearly prove what a powerful poet & writer he was [and still is, if one reads w/an open heart & mind].
            I have been far more honoured and rewarded as a poet than as a writer, and I’m not surprised, because the poetry comes to me from my divinely inspired muse, flowing in an uninterrupted stream that I record as quickly as I can, lest something be lost. Yet in spite of this it rarely requires much post-inspiration editing! I usually have only to be sure my spelling, syntax, and other details are not suffering from the passion of the moments they took to set down. Compare this to my prose, which has also been widely published, BUT I positively slave to get those secular pieces right: 10 or more edits and revisions are not uncommon.
            I think & feel Isaiah was much the same: he was God-possessed and faithfully set down what he was given. We writers MUST, or risk offending the Source from which all blessings flow.


  3. Great work!
    Also, the radiation theory is most compelling, explaining the burnt in image on the cloth without catching fire.

  4. Here’s what’s wrong with the shroud of Turin man theory, the Bible says His beard was pulled out, it also says there were two linens , one for the head and one for the body. So it may have been someone else but it wasn’t Jesus. Also in 1 Corinthians 7 and 14 says it is a shame for man to have long hair.

    • Well, then, you’ll have to explain how the image was imprinted onto the Shroud via a “corona” nuclear flash — a technology not known to even our most advanced science.

    • traildustfotm

      “His beard was pulled out,” does not lead to the conclusion that it was all removed like a rough shave. As for 1 Corinthians 7 and 14, there is much to be said, but nothing to conclusively rule out the length of hair on the man in the shroud.

  5. Reblogged this on kommonsentsjane and commented:
    Reblogged on kommonsentsjane/blogkommonsents.
    3D image of Shroud of Turin man: This is what Jesus looks like!

  6. I’ve believed the Shroud of Turin to be the real burial cloth of Christ since the first time I saw it and read about it. Time and further research and discoveries have only strengthened my belief that it is genuine.
    There was a documentary that came out about six years or so ago, entitled “The Real Face of Jesus”. It showcased the work of Ray Downing, an Emmy award winning 3D computer graphics artist. It was on, believe it or not, the History Channel. But I also purchased a video of it for my mom, and the one from the History Channel was identical, so they hadn’t added or deleted anything as they so often do. If anyone hasn’t seen it, it can be watched on Vimeo here:

    Something else that’s interesting to me, is that the picture in this article that shows what Jesus may have looked like as a 12 year old boy, closely resembles the way Mr. Downing depicts Jesus as a man in this picture
    I think they are simply beautiful!

  7. Kevin J Lankford

    I do think it is possible, for what ever reason/s for the image of the shroud to be exaggerated. As pleasing as it may be to visualize our Savior in such an Angelic form, it does no one justice to be so ‘liberal’ in interpreting the words (such as in Isaiah:53) in which we must place our faith. After all the power of our lord is not in his physical body.

  8. I just watched the movie, “Heaven is for Real” in which a girl drew a picture of Jesus that was verified by a boy on a different continent as the same person he saw. Can not post the movie photo here, but if you compare the pictures, they are not too different from the shroud replication. One has brown eyes, the orher blue/green, but I question how eye color could be surmised from the shroud.

    • The person of whom you speak is akiane kramarik, whose mother was apparently part of an urantia sect (urantia is an occult pseudo-christian religion that even attempts to supercede the Bible with the urantia book, a “channeled” book by the seventh day adventist william sadler and wilfred kellogg, a relation of the eugenicist & circumcision popularizer/fanatic john harvey kellogg, which itself seems to have some basis in a previous work, known as oahspe, a “channeled” book written with a typewriter, which itself may have been influenced considerably by spiritualist andrew jackson davis’ “the principles of nature, her divine revelations, and a voice to mankind”, just for some history.) however finding information on her involvement with that is scarce and difficult, that she gives Christ blue eyes, and white skin is a bit suspect, as far as that all goes. Beyond her mom being suspected of doing some of the painting, akiane’s own work these days seems to have a bizarre, illuminati-esque creepy tinge to it, I would regard the picture, and her works, with some measure of caution, and wouldn’t subscribe to calling them miraculous, as they are billed.
      The images are well done though, just a shame there is so much spooky about their origins & authenticity.

  9. It’s good that posts like these divide, at times, and do not unite, for this reason. Posts on Jesus tend to separate the sheep from the goats: The haters really come out of the woodwork. Yes, Our Lord CAN take care of Himself. But we need to defend not only His Sacred Honor, but show the world what faith we have. And this is what sends the haters into a downward spiral of rage: Irritated that we honor Christ, they become enraged at something they cannot stand. They demand that we keep our mouths shut. And why is that—so they can enjoy their lives without being bothered?
    Careful analysis of the Holy Shroud of Turin reveals that the way the Image on it COULD NOT have been produced by ANY workman or artist of the Middle Ages, because any such technique was NOT known at the time. And as your post states or implies, scientists STILL do not fully understand it.
    The haters WILL NOT admit that science itself has revealed that the Shroud actually contains 3-D information that ANY OTHER two-dimensional image on any medium CANNOT contain! But again, the haters take offense! Atheist, Heal Thyself!

    • “Posts on Jesus tend to separate the sheep from the goats: The haters really come out of the woodwork.”
      Thank you, Steven, for pointing this out, as I was quite disturbed and hurt by the first two vicious comments on this post.
      “the Image on it COULD NOT have been produced by ANY workman or artist of the Middle Ages”
      Nor can the image be produced by anyone TODAY, artist or scientist. Nor is the Shroud image produced in the Middle Ages. There is plentiful compelling evidence that the image was rendered at the time of Christ, including pollen in the Shroud’s linen fibers.
      Lastly, I don’t believe the vicious comments were made by atheists. They were made by Protestants, with a rabid hatred for Catholics and the Catholic Church, the depths of which baffle me.

      • Yes, I agree. That is why I tend to be somewhat “sensitive” to Protestants, having been one once. My theory is that as all the other denominations are based on negation to some extent, attacking the Church is a form of justification.
        I made my choice and I am anything but sorry. I did not then, nor do I now, think that Christ wants His church divided. I do not think it proper or necessary for Catholics to be defensive to Protestants. If anything, it is the other way around. I really don’t care what their reasons are, they can do whatever they like as they all have their own crosses to bear. I’ll continue to bear mine in a manner that I find acceptable.
        As to the shroud, it is truly miraculous and an article that inspires faith. I have studied it extensively and I’m convinced that it is the real deal. For those who disagree, fine. I am sorry to say that I am not surprised by this. True faith and the lifelong pursuit of Grace are out of fashion. Many have asked for, and received a “fast food” version of Christianity. That is truly sad for them.

      • traildustfotm

        They remind me of an old friend who studied theology, became a scholar, and occasionally tries to rescue me from having too much faith. I love the guy, but he presumes that I came by my beliefs naively.

  10. traildustfotm

    Thank you for this, Dr. Eowyn! For several reasons, I arrived at Easter Sunday in an emotionally and spiritually exhausted condition this year. Your article has really helped me. And, I am very happy to see that Jim Caviezel has proven to be an amazingly accurate choice for the role of Jesus. As an artist I have long struggled with how to portray our Lord, not wanting to be presumptuous about His appearance. This is wonderful.

  11. traildustfotm

    This wasn’t exactly photography, because the energy that left this imprint was way beyond the common energy of light. But it’s not too big a jump to call the shroud history’s first photographic negative…

  12. Stunning depiction of our Lord Jesus as a child.
    I just purchased a copy of Wilcox’ book on the Shroud.

  13. I found this last week. What a beautiful thing to be thinking about!

  14. The only real contention I’d have here is that the rendering is of a very white/caucasian looking child, and my understanding is that Christ was semitic, having tan skin, dark hair & eyes, going strictly by what is related in the NT.
    I don’t know if the shroud is authentic or not, personally, but then perhaps I am in the minority here in that I don’t see why it is so important to assert that it is, if it did turn out to be a work of art, what is the loss? If it did turn out to be authentic, what would that do, really? If cited for evidence of Christianity, atheists and pagans would likely only cede it being proof that a historical personage did exist, but would otherwise be too hard-headed, I suspect.
    As far as it goes for believers, while it is nice to potentially have physical vindication or affirmation, is Faith or Belief dependent upon such, is either bolstered by it?
    Not trying to be nasty or anything, but for as remarkable as the shroud may be, and whether authentic or an art piece, I fail to see why it is regarded as so important overall, to the point of provoking division and spatting, I’m no scholar, and certainly not above some spatting myself, but do you suppose Christ would want followers trying to fight or harm their fellowship over His burial cloth?

    • “Christ was semitic, having tan skin, dark hair & eyes, going strictly by what is related in the NT.”
      Where in the New Testament is there a description of Jesus’ appearance? Please give us the book, chapter and verse.
      “I fail to see why it is regarded as so important overall, to the point of provoking division and spatting,”
      Unlike pure-spirits angels, God made human beings as sensory creatures, so visual information is important to us. No one says, certainly not I, that my “faith or belief is dependent upon” the Shroud. Nor have I provoked “division and spatting” by reporting Professor Fanti’s 3D reconstruction of the man in the Shroud. That is your presumption, which I greatly resent.

      • I’m certainly not accusing anyone of anything here, much less stirring discord, rather I’m saying that this is the result of the shroud itself, the object, as with other objects christian & otherwise, which tend to provoke such issues, especially when the objects in question are religious/spiritual in nature. I sure don’t mean to go impugning anyone here, (neither catholics or protestants so-called or anyone else) but the spatting does concern me as it seems folks will be very quick to take sides with regard to the object, despite being in agreement on Christ, and I personally don’t think an object as such should be grounds for getting hostile with each other.
        It is certainly nice to have a visual item to reaffirm things, but given the problems such items also raise, (remember hitler’s persuit of the so-called “lance of destiny”?) I do wonder if God would leave such artefacts in the hands of man, or if they’d be purposefully left in obscurity? They can have an effect of edifying, certainly, but the potential for warfare and bloodshed (because humans are tempermental creatures) and even idolatry of the object, perhaps even clipsing who the object is associated with, is also a high risk. (I’m not trying to imply there are no such artefacts, mind you, but the potential for their abuse is vast… think about people trying to assert dominance because they, by legitimate or crooked means, acquired some object of special significance.)
        As far as Christ’s appearance goes, consider who mary was said to be via Luke 3’s geneaology, (Traditionally held to be mary’s) she is said to be a descendant of the hebrews, of the tribe of judah specifically, ultimately back to david, the genetic base material God had to work with for constructing Christ’s physical flesh and blood, (Going by the Bible, and historical records, what did hebrews look like physically?) not that He couldn’t alter it of course, but then there is the narrative saying that judas had to point Him out, a “white” or “black” person etc. standing in the midst of semites/arabian folk would stand out rather well. (Most readers here already know the caucasian ashkenazim/khazars by and large are not gentically hebrew, except where they’ve intermarried, of course, however mary and Christ predate their culture, thus a physical description matching an ashkenazim or caucasian person would be unlikely.)
        If Luke’s geneaology is inadmissable, then mary’s lineage should be considered, if she were “white” or “black” she too would be exceptional in that society, and it may well have been something taken notice of, no? Although given the geographical distance to travel for other ethnicities at the time, and the tribalism present in that culture, it would be unlikely she would be “black” or “white”, as far as ethnicity goes, and was in all probability hebrew/semitic/arabic by ethnicity, which would (Again unless God, for whatever reason, modified the ethnicity of the flesh used, which seems unlikely given what point woudl there be to doing so?) make Christ have the hebrew/arabic/semitic look of tan skin dark hair, and dark eyes (blue or green eyes would be a trait widely noticed, and remarked on, I’d suspect). But again I’m no scholar.

  15. It doesn’t matter to me how he looked, if he was tall if he was dark skinned, why try to put a face on him, HE WAS and HE IS, To me He is a divine being, HE, WHO TAKES AWAY THE SINS OF THE WORLD, he died for us and so from the moment he was born until he died has been a mystery and I do believe it is to be that way, no matter how much it is analyzed with modern instruments -HE WANTED IT this way so he could be EVER PRESENT TO men till the end of time.

    • A bit carried away with knee-jerk anger there.
      A little gentle Grace would have sufficed, friend.
      Whether we have a face for Christ, or one from our own imaginations, or none but an imposible to achieve lack of image due to being ultra impossibly holy, it does not matter.
      God is good, His Grace abounds, and people’s sin is forgiven when we truly repent and place our faith in Him.
      There’s no need to worry about these matters. Trust God, have Faith, be gentle in spirit. He is capable of winning His own battles, and we are not.

  16. There is no way his hair would have been that color.

    • It was and is not uncommon for natives of Palestine/Israel to have had light to reddish hair. Many Hebraic folk were known for sandy colored hair.
      However, to be fair to your point or any point of hair or skin color, evidence would be needed to really portray this accurately.
      For now we simply take those matters with a pinch of salt and see how things develope and hope racists from all and any agendas don’t run with the “baton”.
      For now, we don’t know what color His skin or hair would have been, although, in all likelihood, His hair would have been dark, and His skin anywhere from light brown through to copper or “olive” as many people from Palestine/Israel have generally been.

  17. As a believer in Christ I always found the matter of the shroud to be dubious. Perhapd even a grossly explotative manipulation of the vulnerable and superstitious and idolatotory aspect of human nature. And ranked it up there with UFO stories, ghost stories, and conspiracy theories, and the like.
    However, if indeed the research so far upon the original shroud by relevant scientific experts and professionals is for real, then I’d be happy to accept that evidence.
    Although we must also consider, that as with all science and research, we sometimes find that new findings may contradict older findings, like, for example an earlier carbon 14 dating got the dating wrong. It had turned out they’d tested on a piece of fibre which had come from a later repair work. But at that time this was taken a pointing to the shroud having been a much later “work”.
    Then once what is now seen to be a blunder was was corrected by dating a piece of the original fabric fibre, it was shown to be dated a few hundred years either side of the time of Christ’s crucifixion.
    Who knows, but it may come to light as technology advances that all of the previous data might be negated.
    But for now, any sane and proper evidence-based theories point to the shroud’s authenticity.
    Although belief in Christ and God is a matter of faith. Here with the shroud it would ne unhealthy to consider it of itself, the very shroud, to be a matter of faith. Again, that would be placing a material object in the place of where our faith should be focused: on the risen Christ, and God in Him. And this would be both superstitious and idolatory.
    The physical is a matter for science as science evolves. And Christ the living risen Son of God is a matter for faith.
    I have enjoyed seeing the 3-D imaging and the plaster statue. And been fascinated by the technical forensic accuracy of it.

    • “Then once what is now seen to be a blunder was was corrected by dating a piece of the original fabric fibre, it was shown to be dated a few hundred years either side of the time of Christ’s crucifixion.”
      If you’re gonna comment on the Shroud, you should at least try to be informed. The carbon dating test (a method that is not exactly error-free) was conducted on a MENDED piece from the border of the Shroud. There was a fire in the 14th century in the church that housed the Shroud, and the cloth was burnt. Thus, the mending.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.