Jesus in the Kit Kat den

By Phil Plait | April 13, 2009 11:10 am

Remember that part of the Sermon on the Mount when Jesus said "Blessed are the sweetmakers, for they shall be called the bonbons of God?"

No? Then explain this:

Jesus in a Kit Kat

Made. Of. Win.

Or made of sugar, wheat flour, cocoa butter, non-fat milk, chocolate, refined palm kernel oil, lactose, milk fat, soy lecithin, PGPR (emulsifier), yeast, artificial flavor, salt, and sodium bicarbonate.

Either way, that’s awesome. If you don’t see it right away, look closely at the bite mark, or go to the original article and click the picture for a closeup.

So many jokes to make… the Shroud of Chewin’… As a bird that wandereth from her Nestlé, so is a man that wandereth from his place…

Or, maybe, just "Gimme a break!"

Tip o’ the chocolate-smudged wrapper to BABloggee Jimmy Erickson.

CATEGORIZED UNDER: Humor, Pareidolia

Comments (83)

  1. Naw, that’s Frank Zappa.

  2. Sili

    That’s one of the better ones for sure.

    It’s so Turinesque, I’d have expected it to come from a Photoshop Phriday or summat.

  3. Todd W.

    Wow! A Guy Fawkes mask in a kitkat! That is awesome.

  4. The Other Ian

    Looks like one of the kings from a deck of playing cards to me.

  5. Don’t believe it, it’s a twix!

  6. Wait, didn’t the bible have some negative things to say about yeast? Clearly this is Odin.

  7. Luis

    Jesus? It looks like Optimus Prime to me!

  8. Nah, not Optimus, just the Autobot symbol.

  9. «bønez_brigade»

    A case could be made for its resemblance to Snidely Whiplash (sans top hat); it even has the chin dimple (for later versions of said villain).

  10. jr

    looks like a Sphinx with a ‘stache to me.

  11. Gotta say it!

    Hey! Are you going to eat that?

    *munch munch*

  12. Whoever it is, he doesn’t look happy.

  13. Brian Schlosser

    I think He actually said “Blessed are the Cheesmakers”

  14. HB

    Hooray, “Bad ‘Astronomy’ ” is now officially a blog about mocking religion and Jenny McCarthy.

    I’m not even the least bit religious, but on the internet – that sort of choir already has more preachers than it needs, don’t you think?

  15. Donnie B.

    Let me guess — the image was burned in by a supernatural energy release that coincided with the resurrection, right?

    Or maybe the regurgitation…

  16. HB, I am not mocking religion. I am (gently) mocking a subset of people who think that every random coincidence is a sign from God.

  17. Your Name's Not Bruce?

    Maybe each bite reveals a new diety. Or if you slice it in series and photograph it you get a little animation like parts of Peter Gabriel’s “Big Time”.

  18. Todd W.

    @HB

    Of the last five posts, two were about astronomy, one was about astronomy in the movies (and abuses thereof), one was a sci-fi post (kinda sort astronomy-related) and one was gentle ribbing of those who see signs of the divine in pareidoliac foodstuffs.

    And as to the Jenny McCarthy posts, those fit in with the skeptical thinking aspect of the blog, and generally they call her out for her stance on vaccines and autism than mocking her as a person.

    But, there are lovely little tags on every post, and the titles generally indicate what the post will be about, making it very easy and simple to avoid posts that are not specifically about astronomy.

  19. Pieter Kok

    And who said the Dutch aren’t religious? ;-)

  20. John Swindle

    HB – I disagree. That choir cannot have too many preachers as long as the silliness against which they preach persists. Personally, I welcome the occasional sermon (to wear out your metaphor) from Reverend Plait.

    As for the candy bar, if that wasn’t graphically manipulated, it’s the best bit of pareidolia I’ve ever seen. If it was, it’s still pretty good.

  21. Is it just me, or does “Jesus in a Kit Kat” sound like something Penny from TBBT would say after dealing with Sheldon?

  22. ccpetersen

    HB: there’s a very nice little link over in the right column called “Politics and Religion” posts. Try reading it, eh?

  23. Peter

    I see the creepy Burger King guy from the advertisements…

  24. Larry

    Choco-Jesus! Now with more crunch!

  25. fff

    It looks to me like the Armenian guy who makes gyros and hummus at the mall.

  26. Bramblyspam

    Hmm, it first reminded me of the Guy Fawkes mask from the movie “V for Vendetta”.

  27. Maranie

    Don’t think I’ve ever bitten into a food item and then scrutinized it for faces. Bugs, yes; signs, no. How do people find these things?

  28. patrick

    What a luxurious mane of hair.

    It could be Jackie O with a mustache.

    It also kind of looks like a cross-section of Juggernaut’s helmet.

    @Peter- Right on about the BK mascot. Best one yet. If he was smiling it would be even better, but pretty good.

  29. Greg

    Christ, that looks tasty.

  30. Torbjörn Larsson, OM

    Usually these pareidolia posts aren’t quite to my liking (ask me about a year-ish US visit and seeing cockroaches for years afterwards), but I’m a faithful believer in chocolate… Yum!

  31. Justin Olson

    Phil,

    While it’s possible this image is real in the sense that someone took this picture without manipulating it, the metadata in Photoshop says the original image was taken on 3/16 with a Canon EOS 400D Digital and then brought into Adobe Photoshop CS2 on a Machintosh as a TIFF and then saved out as a JPG on 4/10.

    This could have been easily faked. To me, the facial features (nose, eyes, cheeks, mustache) look a little too smooth compared to the surrounding rough wafer material — as if someone used the clone tool with feathered edges to blend in the shroud face. Viewed at 800% magnification there is a very sharp straight line on the left side of the nose with dark pixels on one side and light on the other that looks like an editing artifact. It’s about a dozen pixels high at this low resolution. Personally I would like to see the original 10 megapixel image from the camera with a date stamp no later than 3/16 18:01:31.

    Check for yourself. In Photoshop, click on “File,” “File Info,” then “Advanced.” Or download JPEGsnoop for free to scan the image for any anomalies. According to that program:

    ASSESSMENT: Class 1 – Image is processed/edited

    http://impulseadventure.com/photo/jpeg-snoop.html

  32. Michelle

    Hey it does look a lot like that fake thing.. Shroud of Turin?

  33. Brg

    Looks like the image in the Shroud of Turin.

  34. Daffy

    HB: “I’m not even the least bit religious, but on the internet – that sort of choir already has more preachers than it needs, don’t you think?”

    Not even close. Not as long as the Religious Right are out there trying to subvert everything great about our country. When they shut up maybe the rest of us can relax…but not a moment sooner.

  35. Justin– yeah, but then I do that with all my images as well to resize them and maybe drop the resolution to web compatibility. But even if it’s shopped, it’s well done and incredibly funny.

  36. FILTHpig

    I apologize in advance: Chocolate Salty Jesus Balls! *Whew* Okay, I’m better now that I got it out…

  37. mus

    Phil, you should be getting paid (more) for posts like this. I just had to go out and buy some kit kats.

  38. Daffy

    Looking at it more closely I am pretty certain someone combined shots…the face looks way too much like the Shroud of Turin to be coincidence, IMO.

  39. Psaam 35:15 But in mine adversity they rejoiced, and gathered themselves together: yea, the abjects gathered themselves together against me, and I knew it not; they did tear me, and ceased not:
    35:16 With hypocritical mockers in feasts, they gnashed upon me with their teeth.
    35:17 Lord, how long wilt thou look on? rescue my soul from their destructions, my darling from the lions.
    35:18 I will give thee thanks in the great congregation: I will praise thee among much people.
    35:19 Let not them that are mine enemies wrongfully rejoice over me: neither let them wink with the eye that hate me without a cause.
    35:20 For they speak not peace: but they devise deceitful matters against them that are quiet in the land.
    35:21 Yea, they opened their mouth wide against me, and said, Aha, aha, our eye hath seen it.

  40. Scott S.

    Where did they find a Kit Kat with a picture of Joseph Stalin in it?

  41. I think it was “blessed are the cheese-makers” – but obviously it wasn’t meant to be specific, it was meant to refer to all manufacturers of dairy products – which, at a stretch, includes chocolate :)

  42. MadScientist

    I thought it was Megatron. Apparently it’s one of the FSM’s jokes.

  43. coolstar

    Pareidolia = fun, using it to mock someone’s religion, not so much.
    Meaningless protests to the contrary, that is EXACTLY what Phil has done with
    the “sermon on the mount” rephrasing, no two ways about it (and others
    here have done worse). It’s S*** like that that gives us atheists a
    bad name. If you don’t agree, fine, just means you need an empathy gene
    transplant…….And no, my humor gene works just fine, thank you very much.

  44. Sir Struggle

    Must have been a spoiled or expired kit-kat. As hard as that was to see, you would figure that the urge to continue eating the kit-katty goodness would have happened faster than recognizing the face of old man winter.

  45. Sir Struggle

    Coolstar, I agree with your argument to a point. Dissection of pareidolia is fine and sadly needed when talking about people that make pilgrimages to Mexico to see the Virgin Mary’s face of a billboard, but very different in this case. Most of the ones that crop up nowadays are bored people that happen to notice something quirky and they just put it on their blog with the rest of the useless info that clogs the internet.

    But eventually people will figure out that making light of the bible doesn’t equate to making fun of Christians. When I laugh every time I hear about the time Jesus found a young ass, it isn’t because I want to disrespect Christians. It’s because it’s funny.

  46. Connor

    “It’s S*** like that that gives us atheists a bad name.”

    As opposed to telling me I’m going to burn in hell? For eternity? Yes, that’s much more reasonable.

    Your humour gene might want to express itself a little more.

  47. fff

    I haven’t seen Phil get down on religion or religious people in general, it just seems to be the crazy sorts he goes after. Which is fine with me. Anyway, it’s all in good fun.

  48. David

    No so convincing Photoshopped image of the image on the Shroud of Turin. But then, many of the ingredients in the candy are fake, too.

    “Credulous” and “Christian” are moving ever so closer together in meaning.

    Who knew Bad Astronomy could expose so much Bad Theology?

  49. yumenoko

    Major lolz! I actually work for Nestle, so you know I’m sending this around the office tomorrow.

  50. Jack Mitcham

    I just want to know why every “male face” defaults to Jesus.

  51. That’s not Jesus. That’s Osama Bin Laden!

    That candy is evil man!

  52. alfaniner

    “Justin Olson Says:” (Photoshop advanced class)

    …Are you kidding? Phil just learned how to make a circle, for Universe’s sake!

  53. Amalekite

    Boingo beat me to it – obviously its Osama bin Laden – the beard is a dead give away! ;-)

    @ Jack Mitcham :

    Yep, indeedy – & also why every female face automatically becomes Mary too.

    Of course, we don’t actually know what either Mary or Jesus looked like so how we can tell whether any face is theirs sure beats me. :roll:

  54. Petrolonfire

    @ coolstar : (April 13th, 2009 at 4:58 pm)

    Pareidolia = fun, using it to mock someone’s religion, not so much.
    Meaningless protests to the contrary, that is EXACTLY what Phil has done with the “sermon on the mount” rephrasing, no two ways about it (and others
    here have done worse).

    Your opinion only mate. I for one, disagree with you.
    Yes, two ways ’bout it -maybe even three or five! ;-)

    Besides mocking teh stupid Sky-fairy myths is not only good fun but intellectually healthy for all. Taking what is ridiculous unduly seriously when it deserves to be laughed at, OTOH, now that is kinda dumb.

    It’s S*** like that that gives us atheists a
    bad name.

    “Us atheists?” You sure don’t sound like an atheist to me! Sure you’re not yet another too easily offended, hypocritical “Buy-bull” follower in disguise instead? :roll:

    If you don’t agree, fine, just means you need an empathy gene
    transplant…….And no, my humor gene works just fine, thank you very much.

    I’d get a second – independent – opinion on that if I were you, dude. ;-)

  55. At first I had to agree this was a Photoshop job. I concluded this after downloading an original Turin image and aligning it with the Kit Kat image. It’s a pretty neat fit. Almost perfect in fact.

    But then I thought, “Hang on!, God would surely create a perfect image!” So, rather than assume Photoshop this time, I just converted to Christianity.

    Thanks Phil :)

  56. Pieter Kok

    Humor can’t be traced to a single gene. Everyone knows it comes from a gland.

  57. John Swindle

    Coolstar–“Meaningless protests to the contrary…”

    I take it that by this you mean anyone who disagrees with you is wrong?

    . No.

    Now you are doubly wrong. The way to deal with silly beliefs is any darn way I choose to. Mockery is just fine as a response to silly ideas, and you are free to mock, also. Now, however, I shall taunt you a second time. You are wrong. Those silly beliefs are wrong. And mockery is precisely the correct treatment. Beliefs that cannot stand up to mockery are not worth holding. A supposed deity that cannot defend itself is not worthy of reverence. And if you don’t like my choice of pink-and-green socks with sandals, feel free to mock.

  58. jasonB

    It looks like the severed head of a non-believer. Praise Allah.

  59. American Voyager

    To be honest, I’m getting quite tired of all this. Yes, people see what they want to in these types of objects. Does it mean anything? Of course not. Why do we have to see them all paraded here like some side show at a cheap carnival? Just accept the fact that this has gone on from the beginning of time and will until the end. Then forget it. It’s not worth writing about. I’d much rather see cool posts about astronomy. My three cents for what it’s worth…………….

  60. Todd W.

    @American Voyager

    Why do we have to see them all paraded here like some side show at a cheap carnival?

    Because Phil’s a fan of pareidolia and likes to share that with his readers?

  61. WeirdFish

    @AndyD: Well, THAT was intelligently designed …..

  62. mus

    “If you don’t agree, fine, just means you need an empathy gene
    transplant…….And no, my humor gene works just fine, thank you very much.”

    I don’t think if I got 2000 more empathy genes, that I would be able to empathize with believing something so incredibly dumb and backwards, to put it kindly.

  63. JonMcSkeptic

    You are all ingrates and maroons, it is clearly Gimli, son of Gloin. LoReidolia FTW!

  64. drewski

    This looks shopped. I can tell from some of the pixels and from having seen quite a few shops in my time.

    Ahem.

    Jesus in supporting evil multinational corporation shocker!

  65. fff

    Yeah, you know. I think the main thing that turns many people off to becoming actively atheist (whatever that means) is the arrogant, snarky tone some of its adherents take when they’re talking about religious belief. It’s fine to say believing in a deity is illogical, baseless, etc. Those are bases for actual arguments. But the arrogant tone doesn’t add a thing to your arguments, and it’s almost as irritating to me as the tone a lot of religious people take when they tell me I’m going to Hell unless I get my ass into a church and start repenting for my sins. Honestly, it all ends up looking like a self-congratulatory circlejerk. I think I’d rather sit through a three-hour Sunday service than take more of that.

    I’m not saying don’t fight the religious crazies, but when some atheists approach that fight they way they do, they’re really shooting themselves in the foot.

  66. gkdada

    Hey, the moment I saw it, I saw a huge snarl (or a reaaaaally angry contorted face. Then I said: “Wait a minute. A Jesus cannot have a snarl/contortion!” With great difficulty, I turned the snarly upper lip into an (almost santa clausish) moustache, to make it a Jesus.

    Pretty farfetched!

  67. Pieter Kok

    @fff: There is a fine line between snark and arrogance on the one hand, and humorous mockery on the other. The fact that many people are not always able to mock humorously, and therefore degenerate into arrogant snark is unfortunate, but inevitable. As the green-pink socked, sandal wearing dude points out above, it is OK to mock religion and the religious. I would go so far as to say it is our civic duty! For when the religious are no longer allowed to be mocked, we’re not so far away from burning effigees and worse. Just look at the reaction to the Danish Mohammed cartoons.

  68. WhySoSerious

    That’s not Jebus.. It’s Optimus Prime

  69. fff

    @Pieter, I wasn’t really referring to the mockery of people who see Jesus in Kit Kat bars or grilled cheese sandwiches (maybe I should have said so initially.) I mock those people myself. It’s more about the tone some of the people in here take about religious belief and tradition in general. I don’t care personally; I can take mockery just fine, but mockery doesn’t add anything to the debate is what I’m saying.

  70. John Swindle

    I think a case can be made that mockery of superstition works well as part of a well-rounded program of mental fitness, including insightful discussion and skillful debate.

    Discussion and debate do a fine job on their own, but with the addition of sincere mockery, the task of easing stupidity’s grip on the throat of twenty-first century life is much more merrily accomplished.

    Without the mockery, some uncertainty might remain as to how at least some thinking people view superstition. I don’t mean we all view it in the same way, but should there be any doubt that it can be regarded as silly? If you think superstition deserves respect, please tell me why.

  71. Flying sardines

    @ jasonB : (April 14th, 2009 at 5:14 am)

    It looks like the severed head of a non-believer. Praise Allah.

    Well yeah, but it is a shrunken head too …

    Do Muslim warriors shrink their enemies heads like that? Don’t think so.

    Shrunken severed heads – now where is that done?
    South Pacific islands somewhere maybe?

    Aha! The Vanuatuan or Papuan gods were right after all! ;-)

  72. Flying sardines

    @ John Swindle : Well said & seconded by me.

  73. Torbjörn Larsson, OM

    It’s fine to say believing in a deity is illogical, baseless, etc. Those are bases for actual arguments. But the arrogant tone doesn’t add a thing to your arguments, and it’s almost as irritating to me as the tone a lot of religious people take when they tell me I’m going to Hell unless I get my ass into a church and start repenting for my sins.

    I think that argument would be worth having if any examples of arrogance was in evidence. But I don’t think I have ever been shown such, merely protests against mocking.

    On the other side the arrogance of a church goes much deeper than trying blackmailing innocent victims. A church lives on its arrogant assumption that it is the only valid religion out of tens of thousands that have been thought up, or could be thought up.

    This special pleading of religion is usually furthered by fundamentalists that claim that atheism is a belief, so another exercise in arrogance.

    And then that isn’t enough they may start to refer to their religious texts in all seriousness, which is about as arrogant that a person can be. [Well, actually it is so ridiculous, that it is self-mocking. But the very idea that such a text is of any relevance whatsoever for a non-believer is supremely arrogant.]

    So to this day I have found all of the arrogance to be on the other side. Except possibly Hitchens, which is so annoyingly perfectly self-confident that it is bordering on arrogance. ;-)

  74. fff

    Well, fine, if you prefer to simply mock religious sorts that’s your call. The debate over God is an important one, and anyone should be able to take some mockery without getting offended anyway (unless they’re sorely lacking in a sense of humor, which is definitely the case sometimes.) To me, the true fight is against religious extremism and the fundamentalist political agenda, both in the United States and abroad.

    I remember reading some story here about how some guy with cancer went to see the Pope and touched his rosary, and then his cancer cleared up later. Maybe I’m getting the details wrong, but we hear about this sort of thing all the time. Sure, it’s a silly notion that the Pope’s rosary somehow saved this devout Catholic from his ailment. But then people were talking about the guy “fondling” the rosary and so on. That’s the sort of thing I mean. It’s not enough to point out where many of the religious go wrong in their logic, you’ve got to talk to them or about them as though they were children or imbeciles. Again, it’s your call, but don’t expect anything to come of it other than feeling a sense of superiority.

    As for religious texts, they most certainly are relevant for everyone. What better way to argue with a Christian who believes in the death penalty or holy war than firing Bible quotes at him?

  75. TheBlackCat

    What better way to argue with a Christian who believes in the death penalty or holy war than firing Bible quotes at him?

    I can think of many, considering the Bible explicitly endorses both of these.

  76. fff

    It also argues against both of them. The great thing about the Bible is that it constantly contradicts itself.

  77. Torbjörn Larsson, OM

    @ fff:

    The debate over God is an important one,

    Not for everyone. But the debate over constraints in freedom of religion, say by way of manufactured controversies about science to push sectarian agenda, is important for all.

    But then people were talking about the guy “fondling” the rosary and so on. That’s the sort of thing I mean.

    I would prefer a reference instead of an anecdote.

    The great thing about the Bible is that it constantly contradicts itself.

    That only speaks to its irrelevancy.

    Sure, I get apologetics, and having read a lot of especially abrahamic texts I could certainly do it. Not without moral problems though, since such selection is tantamount to lying, even beside the fact that the texts are factually meaningless so of no relevancy for understanding anything outside religion itself. [And quite frankly, it would be utterly boring anyway.]

    I prefer to use a model of god, say creationism, to expose its irrelevancy or harm for facts.

  78. I found four of these on Easter.

    I ate them.

NEW ON DISCOVER
OPEN
CITIZEN SCIENCE
ADVERTISEMENT

Discover's Newsletter

Sign up to get the latest science news delivered weekly right to your inbox!

ADVERTISEMENT

See More

ADVERTISEMENT
Collapse bottom bar
+

Login to your Account

X
E-mail address:
Password:
Remember me
Forgot your password?
No problem. Click here to have it e-mailed to you.

Not Registered Yet?

Register now for FREE. Registration only takes a few minutes to complete. Register now »