Hidden Sphinx DISCOVERED — Egypt Says NO!

(DailyChive.com) – Italian researchers claim radar scans reveal a buried second Sphinx at Giza, yet Egyptian authorities and credentialed scientists dismiss the unvalidated data as pseudoscience—raising questions about who controls ancient truths and whether sensational archaeology serves discovery or distraction.

Story Snapshot

Filippo Biondi’s team claims radar scans show a buried second Sphinx and underground megastructure near the Great Pyramid, citing 80% confidence.
Former Egyptian Antiquities Minister Zahi Hawass and physicist Sabine Hossenfelder reject the claims as scientifically unapproved and selectively interpreted.
The theory recycles a debunked 1990s claim by tour guide Bassam el-Shammaa, previously endorsed then retracted by fringe researchers.
No peer-reviewed studies or excavation permits support the assertions, leaving mainstream Egyptology and credible experts united in skepticism.

Recycled Claims Meet Modern Technology

Filippo Biondi, an Italian radar engineer, announced in March 2026 on the Matt Beall Limitless podcast that Synthetic Aperture Radar scans detected symmetrical structures beneath a mound near the Great Sphinx matching its dimensions. He describes vertical shafts and horizontal passages as part of a vast underground megastructure beneath the Khafre pyramid, asserting 80% confidence in a buried second Sphinx. Biondi’s team previously claimed discovery of an “underground city” in 2025, now expanding assertions to include a twin guardian statue referenced symbolically on the ancient Dream Stele. The methodology converts radar signals to sound waves for subsurface imaging, a technique Biondi touts as scientifically advanced yet lacks independent validation or peer review.

This narrative resurrects claims made by tour guide Bassam el-Shammaa in 1997, who cited mounds and NASA satellite imagery to argue for a paired Sphinx. El-Shammaa’s theory gained traction through a 2014 Ancient Aliens episode and brief endorsement by alternative researcher Robert Bauval, who later retracted support by 2017 after finding no physical evidence. Flinders Petrie searched the Giza opposite in the 19th century and found nothing. Biondi’s use of SAR tomography adds a veneer of modernity to an old idea, but critics note it mirrors fringe archaeology’s pattern of repackaging debunked speculation with technical jargon rather than excavation.

Institutional Gatekeepers Push Back Hard

Zahi Hawass, Egypt’s former antiquities chief, labeled Biondi’s claims “completely wrong” and emphasized that prior authorized scans revealed only small voids, not megastructures. Hawass stated the data is neither scientifically approved nor corroborated by Egypt’s Ministry of Tourism and Antiquities, which controls excavation permits. Theoretical physicist Sabine Hossenfelder called the assertions “bulls**t” in a 2025 critique, arguing Biondi’s team selectively highlighted radar anomalies while ignoring contradictory data across the plateau. She questioned why no credentialed archaeologists or geophysicists have adopted the technique if valid. The Dream Stele, dating to Pharaoh Thutmose IV in 1401 BCE, depicts two sphinxes symbolically as divine guardians, not as architectural blueprints, according to mainstream Egyptology.

Power dynamics favor Egyptian authorities and academic institutions, which demand rigorous peer review and excavation protocols Biondi bypasses. His reliance on remote scans without physical digging aligns with a broader distrust many conservatives share toward unchecked experts, yet the absence of transparent methodology or reproducible results undermines the claim’s legitimacy. Skeptical researcher Jason Colavito traced the narrative to el-Shammaa’s commercialized tours and Ancient Aliens sensationalism, noting no ancient texts or Classical sources mention a second physical Sphinx at Giza. Medieval historian al-Maqrizi referenced a paired statue elsewhere, likely the Isis statue in Cairo, not Giza. This places Biondi’s assertions firmly in fringe territory, rejected by historians and archaeologists alike.

Sensationalism Over Substance

The claim fuels online speculation, podcast downloads, and alternative tourism interest, mirroring how media hype often substitutes for substantive inquiry. Biondi’s team lacks official access to Giza, operating through remote scanning rather than hands-on archaeology, which raises concerns about accountability. His 80% confidence rating is self-assessed, not validated by independent experts or excavation. Hawass noted that extensive prior scans by authorized teams found no evidence of megastructures, only minor voids consistent with natural limestone formations. The narrative’s appeal lies in challenging institutional authority, a sentiment resonating with audiences frustrated by gatekeeping, yet uncritical acceptance risks elevating pseudoscience over fact.

Short-term impacts include confusion among the public and a boost for fringe media outlets capitalizing on mystery. Long-term, if unvalidated claims proliferate, they erode trust in legitimate archaeology and distract from genuine discoveries. Egyptologists face pressure to debunk each viral theory, draining resources from real research. The economic angle benefits alternative tour operators modeling el-Shammaa’s approach, monetizing speculation without evidence. Politically, Egypt’s cultural heritage control is challenged by external researchers bypassing official channels, though authorities retain excavation authority. For conservatives wary of elite narratives, the lesson here is discernment: questioning institutional overreach is healthy, but endorsing unfounded claims undermines credibility and distracts from battles worth fighting.

No Path to Verification

Biondi’s claims remain unverified with no excavation permits granted or peer-reviewed publications issued. No independent teams have replicated his SAR findings, and the technique’s reliability in detecting buried monuments is disputed by geophysicists. The Dream Stele’s symbolic depiction cannot be stretched into physical evidence without archaeological corroboration, which is absent. Prior searches by credentialed researchers like Petrie and authorized scans by Hawass’s teams found no second Sphinx, establishing a consistent baseline of negative evidence. Bauval’s retraction after initially supporting el-Shammaa demonstrates how even fringe allies recognize when speculation lacks substance. The burden of proof rests on Biondi, whose refusal or inability to secure official excavation leaves assertions in limbo.

The broader implication for truth-seeking conservatives is clear: alternative narratives deserve scrutiny, not automatic credibility. Institutional skepticism toward Biondi reflects legitimate standards—peer review, reproducibility, excavation—not censorship. His work exemplifies how technological buzzwords can dress up old myths without advancing knowledge. In an era where trust in experts is fractured, distinguishing between genuine whistleblowers and sensationalists matters. Biondi’s claims collapse under weight of contradictory data, historical debunking, and expert consensus, illustrating that not every challenge to authority deserves support. Real accountability demands evidence, not 80% confidence ratings on podcasts. Until Biondi’s team submits to rigorous validation or excavates with official approval, the second Sphinx remains buried not in sand, but in unfounded speculation.