I’m going to go ahead and say, “Not a chance.” Look for yourself:
1. A similarity between the boy and child in his famous piece Madonna of the Rocks, 2. A distinctive ‘v’ shape in the middle of the woman’s hairline reminiscent of that shown in the last supper, 3. The fleur-de-lys is often said to be a hidden emblem of the secretive Priory of Sion, 4. The area by the woman’s shoulder is unfinished, common in da Vinci works, 5. A tracing of the figure in the Last Supper matches exactly the outline of the woman in this painting, 6. The baby’s second toe is longer than the big toe – another classic da Vinci feature.
All of which adds up to … not very much, especially the idiotic reference to the Priory of Sion. It may, however, be the work of one of his students, which could make it important nonetheless. Its age is undeniable, and it has a fragment of paper on the back that some are identifying as a “papal bull” (?) from Paul V. That would place the “bull” in the period from 1605 to 1621, about a hundred years after the death of Leonardo. Papal bulls (short for “bulla,” the official seal that would have affixed them) were for formal pronouncements, so I’m not quite sure what Paul V would have been doing issuing one about a painting.
And then there’s this double-face-palm moment in the article:
She thinks the true meaning of the artwork may have been disguised for centuries because such a work would have been considered heretic by the Roman Catholic Church.
The Pope decreed the Virgin Mary should be illustrated in blue whereas Mary Magdalene had to be shown in red attire, as depicted in this painting.
Just … no. Yes, the Blessed Mother is traditionally depicted in blue, and the Church has encouraged this for various extremely logical reasons, but it’s nothing that rises to the level of “heresy”. (I’m assuming she means “heretical”, an adjective, rather than “heretic”, a noun. Seriously: do they even bother teaching grammar to journalism students any more, or did they replace that with a year-long class on gender-neutral pronouns?)
Also, I do wish the media would stop calling Leonardo da Vinci just “da Vinci.” It’s like calling St. Francis just “Assisi” or me just “New Jersey.” This is a Dan Brownism, and it grates on my nerves.