Archaeologists and remote-sensing specialists have pushed back against a viral social media claim alleging that a second Sphinx lies buried beneath the Giza Plateau in Egypt. The claim, which spread rapidly across platforms including TikTok and YouTube, appears to rest on a misreading of a legitimate 2022 study that used radar imaging to examine the internal structure of the Great Pyramid. The original research makes no mention of a hidden Sphinx, an underground city, or any subsurface feature outside the pyramid itself.
What the Original Study Actually Found
The research at the center of the controversy is a peer-reviewed paper by Filippo Biondi and Corrado Malanga, published in the journal Remote Sensing by MDPI. Titled “Synthetic Aperture Radar Doppler Tomography Reveals Details of Undiscovered High-Resolution Internal Structure of the Great Pyramid of Giza,” the study applied a technique known as SAR Doppler Tomography to produce high-resolution images of previously unknown internal features within the Great Pyramid. A preprint version of the work was made available on arXiv earlier in the summer of 2022, establishing the earliest public record of the research before its formal peer review.
SAR Doppler Tomography is a method that uses satellite-based radar signals to detect density variations inside large structures. In the Biondi and Malanga study, the technique was directed specifically at the Great Pyramid, not at the surrounding plateau, the Sphinx enclosure, or any other area of the Giza complex. The paper’s scope is tightly focused on identifying voids, chambers, and structural anomalies within the pyramid’s limestone mass. Neither the peer-reviewed publication nor the preprint contains any reference to a second Sphinx, buried statues, or hidden cities.
The authors processed radar data collected by orbiting satellites to build up a three-dimensional model of the interior. By comparing the way radar waves reflected from different depths and angles, they could distinguish between solid stone, previously documented passages, and possible voids or less dense regions. Their results highlighted several internal features that may correspond to construction gaps, relieving spaces, or unfinished corridors, but the imagery is confined to the pyramid volume itself.
In the final, peer-reviewed version of the study, available through the MDPI journal Remote Sensing, the authors carefully describe the limitations of their method and emphasize that their interpretations are constrained by resolution, noise, and the geometry of satellite passes. The journal article is explicit about working within the known footprint of the Great Pyramid and does not extend any conclusions to the wider Giza Plateau.
How the Viral Claim Distorted the Science
The gap between what Biondi and Malanga wrote and what social media users shared is wide. Viral posts took the general concept of radar-based imaging at Giza and extrapolated it far beyond the study’s actual conclusions. Some posts featured dramatic graphics of a Sphinx-like figure hidden underground, paired with language suggesting that the researchers had discovered evidence of a second monument. Others folded the study into broader conspiracy narratives about lost civilizations and secret chambers beneath the plateau.
This kind of distortion follows a familiar pattern. A legitimate scientific paper with a specific, limited finding gets stripped of its context and repackaged as proof of something far more sensational. In this case, the leap from “radar reveals internal pyramid voids” to “radar proves a second Sphinx is buried at Giza” required ignoring almost every detail of the actual research, including its geographic focus, its methodology, and its stated results. The peer-reviewed paper by Biondi and Malanga does not support any of the claims made in the viral posts.
In several of the most widely shared videos, creators conflated different technologies, treating SAR Doppler Tomography, ground-penetrating radar, and muon imaging as interchangeable tools that could all “see” through rock across vast distances. They then suggested that if one method could visualize internal spaces in the pyramid, it must also be capable of mapping the entire plateau, including hypothetical monuments. This ignores the fact that the 2022 study was designed and processed for a very specific target volume and cannot be generalized to other areas without new data and a separate analytical framework.
Some posts also misrepresented the language of the paper, seizing on phrases about “undiscovered structures” and “hidden voids” while omitting the surrounding technical discussion that makes clear these structures lie within the pyramid. In doing so, they transformed cautious scientific descriptions into supposed confirmation of long-rumored mysteries, even though the underlying text does not support such an interpretation.
Why Experts Reject the Second Sphinx Theory
Egyptologists and geophysicists who have worked at Giza for decades have been blunt in their dismissal of the claim. The Giza Plateau is one of the most intensively surveyed archaeological sites on Earth. Ground-penetrating radar, seismic tomography, muon imaging, and satellite remote sensing have all been deployed across the site over the past several decades. None of these efforts has produced evidence of a second monumental sculpture buried near the existing Sphinx.
The existing Great Sphinx, carved from the bedrock of the plateau during the Old Kingdom period, is a singular monument with a well-documented geological and archaeological context. Its enclosure, surrounding temples, and associated causeway have been excavated and studied repeatedly. Claims of a hidden twin periodically resurface in fringe circles, but they have never been substantiated by fieldwork, excavation, or peer-reviewed geophysical data. The Biondi and Malanga study, while a genuine contribution to non-invasive imaging of ancient structures, offers no support for this theory. Its data pertains exclusively to the pyramid’s interior.
Specialists also point out that a second Sphinx-sized statue would leave multiple traces beyond simple radar signatures. The carving of such a monument would produce extensive quarry marks, spoil heaps, and architectural adjustments in nearby structures. None of these indicators has been observed in situ. Instead, the archaeological record around the Sphinx points consistently to a single colossus integrated into a broader ritual landscape, not to a hidden twin awaiting discovery beneath the sand.
The Real Value of SAR Imaging at Giza
Lost in the noise of the viral claim is a more interesting story about the actual capabilities of SAR Doppler Tomography. The technique allows researchers to probe the internal structure of massive stone monuments without drilling, dismantling, or physically entering them. For a site like the Great Pyramid, where preservation concerns limit invasive investigation, this kind of remote sensing is genuinely useful.
Biondi and Malanga’s work demonstrated that satellite-based radar can resolve internal features at a level of detail that complements other non-invasive methods, such as the muon tomography used by the ScanPyramids project. Their findings about previously undetected internal structures within the pyramid are the actual scientific contribution of the paper. That contribution stands on its own merits and does not need to be inflated into a fantasy about buried monuments to be significant.
The distinction matters because misrepresentation of scientific work does not just mislead the public. It also risks undermining confidence in the real research being done at Giza. When a legitimate study gets hijacked to promote a false claim, the researchers involved can find their credibility questioned by association, even though they made no such claims themselves. Neither Biondi nor Malanga has publicly endorsed any interpretation of their work that extends to a second Sphinx or underground city.
More broadly, the successful application of SAR Doppler Tomography at the Great Pyramid opens possibilities for similar surveys at other large stone monuments, from pyramids and temple platforms to massive fortifications. Each new dataset can refine models of ancient construction techniques and help conservators understand how internal stresses and voids might affect long-term stability. These are practical, testable benefits that stand in stark contrast to the speculative narratives circulating online.
Social Media and the Archaeology Misinformation Cycle
The second Sphinx episode fits a broader pattern in which archaeological research becomes fodder for misinformation on social platforms. Short-form video and algorithmically boosted content reward dramatic claims over careful explanation. A post titled “Scientists Found a Second Sphinx” will always outperform one titled “Radar Confirms Known Void Inside Pyramid,” regardless of which is accurate.
This dynamic creates a recurring problem for working archaeologists. Legitimate findings get overshadowed by fabricated interpretations, and researchers end up spending time debunking claims they never made instead of advancing their actual work. The Giza Plateau, because of its global fame and its deep association with mystery and speculation, is especially vulnerable to this cycle.
For readers encountering dramatic archaeological claims online, a few practical steps can help separate real findings from fiction. First, check whether the claim traces back to a specific, named study with identifiable authors and a journal or institutional affiliation. Second, read the study’s abstract or summary rather than relying on secondhand paraphrases. Third, look for coverage by reputable institutions or outlets that quote specialists in the relevant field.
When claims hinge on remote-sensing data, it is also worth noting exactly what area was surveyed and what the authors say about the limits of their method. A study that images the interior of a single monument cannot, by itself, reveal an entire hidden city beneath a landscape. Understanding that distinction can prevent the kind of runaway extrapolation that turned a technical radar analysis of the Great Pyramid into a viral story about a nonexistent second Sphinx.
In the end, the real story at Giza is not about secret statues but about how new technologies are allowing researchers to revisit familiar monuments with fresh eyes. By paying attention to what the data actually show (and what they do not), readers can appreciate the genuine advances in archaeological science without being drawn into unfounded speculation.
More from Morning Overview
*This article was researched with the help of AI, with human editors creating the final content.
