Editing Our Lady of Guadalupe (section)

===Technical analyses===
[[File:Our Lady of Guadalupe.JPG|right|thumb|The original ''tilma'' of [[Juan Diego]], which hangs above the high altar of the Guadalupe Basilica. The suspended crown atop the image dates back to its [[Canonical Coronation]] on October 12, 1895. The image is protected by bulletproof glass and low-oxygen atmosphere.]]

The image and ''tilma'' have been examined numerous times over the years.

====Capitular inquiry====
In 1662, [[Canon (title)#Secular canons|canons]] of the cathedral in Mexico City began the process of asking for a proper liturgy for Our Lady of Guadalupe on December 12. As part of this request, Rome asked for a canonical investigation into the apparitions. The canons carried out this investigation from 1665–1666,{{sfn|Poole|1995|pp=128-129}} including an examination of the image in March 1666.{{sfn|Poole|1995|p=142}}

On March 13, 1666, seven painters examined the image, accompanied by the [[viceroy]] and several clerics. The painters unanimously agreed that it was "impossible that any artist could paint and work something so beautiful, clean, and well-formed on a fabric which is as rough as is the ''tilma''",{{sfn|Chávez|2006|p=24}}{{sfn|Poole|1995|p=142}} and that the image must therefore be miraculous. They also noted the degree of preservation of the image and ''tilma'', and that the ''tilma'' had not been prepared for painting.{{sfn|Chávez|2006|p=25}}

On March 28, three members of the ''protomédico'' of New Spain also examined the image. They also noted how well-preserved the image was given the local climate, and saw this as evidence of the image's supernatural origin.{{sfn|Chávez|2006|p=26}} In contrast, the silver of the moon and the gold on the sunburst, which had both been added to the original, were faded.{{sfn|Poole|1995|p=142}}

====Cabrera====
On April 30, 1751, a group of eight painters headed by [[José de Ibarra]] were allowed to examine the image. On April 15, 1752, one of the painters, [[Miguel Cabrera (painter)|Miguel Cabrera]], was again allowed access to the image in order to create three copies.{{sfn|Brading|2001|p=169}}{{sfn|Chávez|2006|p=27}} In 1756, Cabrera published his account of the image, approved by the other painters, entitled ''[[Maravilla Americana]]''.{{sfn|Chávez|2006|p=27}}

Like the previous report, Cabrera noted the preservation of the image despite the climate. He said that the ''tilma'' was two pieces of cloth sewn together, and that it felt soft, probably made of ''ayate'' fibers rather than the coarser ''maguey'', as others had claimed. He discovered signs of four different painting techniques which he claimed had never been used in combination before. He said that the image had not been [[sizing|sized]], and thus the image could be seen through the back of the cloth, though all but a small portion of the back was covered with silver at the time.{{sfn|Brading|2001|p=170-171}}{{sfn|Poole|1995|p=204-205}}

====Bartolache====
In 1787, another group of painters examined the image at the request of {{interlanguage link|José Ignacio Bartolache|es}}, a doctor and mathematician. They confirmed Cabrera's opinion that the fabric of the ''tilma'' was not coarse, but determined that it was of palm fibers. Contrary to Cabrera, however, they claimed that the image had been [[sizing|sized]] beforehand, and was not visible from behind; however, four years later, two of the painters claimed that they had never seen the back of the image and did not know if it had been sized.{{sfn|Poole|1995|p=205}} The artists came to the conclusion that the parts of the image that were original were of divine origin, though they noted that there were some touch-ups that were clearly the work of human hands, the first study to so note.{{sfn|Poole|1995|p=205}}{{sfn|Chávez|2006|p=27}}

====Flores Gómez====
Art restorer José Antonio Flores Gómez was hired by the abbot of the basilica to work on the image in 1947 and 1973. In a 2002 interview with the magazine ''[[Proceso (magazine)|Proceso]]'', he spoke about his experience. He noted that he had not been required to keep silent about his work, but had done so of his own accord.<ref name="Gomez interview">{{cite magazine |last1=Vera |first1=Rodrigo |title=Un restaurador de la guadalupana expone detalles técnicos que desmitifican a la imagen |trans-title=A restorer of the Guadalupana exposes technical details that demystify the image |magazine=[[Proceso (magazine)|Proceso]] |issue=1343 |date=July 27, 2002 |url=https://www.proceso.com.mx/187951/un-restaurador-de-la-guadalupana-expone-detalles-tecnicos-que-desmitifican-a-la-imagen |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161213172733/https://www.proceso.com.mx/187951/un-restaurador-de-la-guadalupana-expone-detalles-tecnicos-que-desmitifican-a-la-imagen |archive-date=December 13, 2016 |language=es}}</ref>

When he examined the image in 1947, he saw a large crack in the paint running vertically through the middle of the image, as well as some smaller horizontal cracks, which he thought were caused by the image having been folded. He also saw signs that others had touched up the image at various points. The necessity of touching up the image convinced him that it was of human origin.<ref name="Gomez interview"/>

Like others, Flores Gómez noted the softness of the ''tilma'', which seemed to him more like cotton than the rougher agave traditionally claimed. He also said that the paints used in the image came from natural pigments, such as from the [[cochineal]].<ref name="Gomez interview"/>

====Callahan and Smith====
In 1981, Philip Serna Callahan and Jody Brant Smith examined the image under infrared light, a [[Infrared#Art conservation and analysis|common technique]] in art analysis. They were unable to find any trace of sizing or sketching underneath the paint. They concluded that, while there had been additions to and touch-ups of the image, which were in a poor state, there was no explanation for the original parts of the image or their preservation.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Rodriguez |first1=Jeanette |title=Our Lady of Guadalupe: Faith and Empowerment among Mexican-American Women |date=1994 |publisher=University of Texas Press |location=Austin, Texas |isbn=0-292-77061-8 |page=22 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Fwtjf64nn6AC}}</ref>

====Sol Rosales====
In 1982, [[Guillermo Schulenburg]], abbot of the basilica, hired José Sol Rosales of the [[Instituto Nacional de Bellas Artes y Literatura]] to study the image. Sol Rosales thought that the ''tilma'' was made of linen and hemp, and not either agave or cotton. Contrary to previous claims, he said that the fabric had been prepared with white paint before the image had been painted. He saw several different styles of [[tempera]] throughout the image. He held that the paints were made from various natural pigments, and further noted that all of these pigments were commonly available in 16th-century Mexico. Like Flores Gómez, Sol Rosales saw various touch-ups and repainting throughout the image.<ref name="Rosales study">{{cite magazine |last1=Vera |first1=Rodrigo |title=El análisis que ocultó el Vaticano |trans-title=The analysis that the Vatican hid |magazine=Proceso |issue=1333 |date=May 18, 2002 |url=https://www.proceso.com.mx/187569 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190401145956/https://www.proceso.com.mx/187569 |archive-date=April 1, 2019 |language=es}}</ref>

Sol Rosales concluded that the image was of human origin. He claimed that others, like Cabrera, had had similar findings, but concluded that the image was divine due to social pressures.<ref name="Rosales study"/> Sol Rosales and his team were supervised during the investigation by Schulenburg and others. Schulenburg sent the results of this study to the Vatican, cautioning against the canonization of Juan Diego.<ref name="Gomez interview"/>

====Studies on the eyes====
Several studies have examined the eyes of the image. The authors of these studies claim that they have found images in the eyes corresponding to the people believed to have been present when Juan Diego opened his ''tilma'' before the bishop. The eyes are also claimed to contain [[Purkinje images]] exactly where they would be expected to be found in living eyes.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Smith |first1=Jody Brant |title=The Image of Guadalupe: Myth or Miracle |date=1983 |publisher=Doubleday & Company, Inc. |location=Garden City, New York |isbn=0-385-15971-4 |pages=79–83 |url=https://archive.org/details/imageofguadalupe0000smit}}</ref>

Critics of these studies liken the figures to inkblots in which proponents [[Pareidolia|see what they hope to see]].<ref>{{cite book |last1=Nickell |first1=Joe |title=The Science of Miracles: Investigating the Incredible |date=2013 |publisher=Prometheus Books |location=Amherst, New York |isbn=9781616147419 |page=32 |url=https://archive.org/details/scienceofmiracle0000nick}}</ref>