A surgeon’s advanced digital analysis of the Shroud of Turin revealed faint human teeth beneath the lips—details impossible to paint—reigniting the Resurrection debate and leaving even skeptics shaken by the possibility that the image was formed by a real man in an extraordinary, unexplained event.

For centuries, the Shroud of Turin has divided believers, skeptics, scientists, and theologians, but a quiet revelation from an American surgeon has once again pushed the ancient linen into the center of global controversy.

Dr.John Sottosanti, a board-certified surgeon with no prior reputation as a religious activist, says he uncovered something few had ever reported seeing before: the faint outlines of lower teeth beneath the closed lips of the man imprinted on the Shroud.

What startled him even more was how those details appeared—not to the naked eye, not through traditional photography, but only through advanced high-resolution digital imaging.

The moment came during an intensive image-analysis session tied to the JP2 Morning Crew’s series Unveiling the Mystery.

Sottosanti recalls staring at the screen when subtle linear forms emerged beneath the mouth.

“I froze,” he later said.

“I realized I wasn’t looking at paint or artistic shading.

I was looking at anatomy.

Real anatomy.

” According to Sottosanti, the visible incisal plane and faint dental contours align with the positioning of human teeth resting naturally behind slightly parted lips—something nearly impossible for a medieval artist to fabricate with anatomical precision, especially when those details are invisible without modern technology.

The Shroud, believed by many to be the burial cloth of Jesus of Nazareth, has long been scrutinized for evidence of forgery.

Critics have argued it was painted or artificially aged, pointing to carbon dating tests conducted in 1988 that suggested a medieval origin.

Yet defenders counter that the tested samples were taken from a repaired corner of the cloth, potentially contaminated by centuries of handling, fire damage, and restoration.

Sottosanti entered this debate reluctantly.

By his own admission, he approached the Shroud as an agnostic physician, trained to distrust extraordinary claims without physical evidence.

What shifted his stance was not theology, but biology.

“Paint doesn’t produce teeth,” he explained during the broadcast.

“Pigment doesn’t obey anatomical depth.

But what I saw had spatial consistency—like a real face captured in layers.

” He emphasized that the Shroud image is not made of brush strokes, dyes, or pigments.

Instead, the image resides only on the outermost fibers of the linen, without penetration into the threads—a fact long acknowledged by textile experts and chemists.

Even more provocative is Sottosanti’s interpretation of how the image may have formed.

Drawing on previous research into the Shroud’s three-dimensional encoding—where brightness corresponds to cloth-to-body distance—he suggests the image could only have been created by a sudden, intense burst of energy.

He referenced theoretical calculations proposing an emission on the order of 34 terawatts, released in less than a billionth of a second.

“No known natural process does this,” he said.

“And no medieval technology even comes close.”

The idea that such an energy burst could align with the moment of the Resurrection has made headlines before, but Sottosanti’s contribution adds a deeply human detail to the discussion.

Teeth.Silent.Hidden.Anatomically correct.

“That’s when it stopped being abstract for me,” he admitted.

“This wasn’t about faith versus science anymore.

This was about a real man who suffered, died, and left a trace.”

Reactions to the discovery have been swift and polarized.

Supporters see it as another crack in the forgery narrative, while skeptics caution that image enhancement can sometimes produce pareidolia—patterns the brain wants to see.

Still, even critics acknowledge that the Shroud continues to resist definitive explanation, surviving every attempt to categorize it as simple art or chemical trickery.

For the public, the emotional impact may be the strongest legacy of Sottosanti’s claim.

Social media lit up with debates, prayers, mockery, and awe.

Some viewers described chills upon hearing the words, “I saw teeth under his lips.

” Others accused researchers of reviving old myths under new technology.

Yet the Shroud remains where it has always been—suspended between belief and disbelief, linen and mystery.

As Dr.Sottosanti closed his account, he offered no sermon and no demand for belief.

“I’m not telling anyone what to think,” he said quietly.

“I’m just telling you what I saw.

And once you see it, you can’t unsee it.”