And a must-read — a delightfully ponderous analysis by Hugh Farey that could potentially challenge our understanding of the Shroud’s images. You need not set aside your skepticism and anti-skepticism, as this could support many possibilities for research going forward.

For more that will fascinate you and maybe stir up new thinking, see Digital Artwork: Images of Jesus by Mark Anthony Rivera.

Hugh Farey writes:

If the image is a print, we would not expect any shadows at all, light and dark being entirely due to the intensity of what came off the block, but if a sketch, then an artist would certainly think in terms of light. If radiated, then there would also be no shadows, but light and dark would be entirely in terms of the distance the radiation travelled between substrate and cloth. It is part of the enduring mystery of the Shroud that the different interpretations can all produce a similar image. (emphasis mine)

What is it? Print? Sketch? Radiated? An accidental gaseous stain on a sculptor’s linen covering of an unfinished work? A Colin Berry-ish Maillard reaction? A Rogers-ish natural image in the tomb? A naturally formed image on a cloth used at the foot of the cross? A yet-to-be-scripted conspiracy theory? A miracle in the tomb that some believe was intended as a future sign from God? A medieval miracle intended as a contemporaneous sign from God to the Knights of the Fourth Crusade? An artistic method lost to history? A wondrous best mystery forever? Something so simple we won’t believe it when it first occurs to us?

I have created a DIY Microsoft 3D Builder plot of the Mark Rivera image, which I grabbed as a screenshot from Hugh Farey’s site. I see something that resembles a stone sculpture, but I cannot be certain. It sure looks different than the VP-8 from the 1931 Giuseppe Enrie photo we are so familiar with.