The stereotype “what is beautiful is good” has been advocated in different societies and eras in the Western world. Already in the Iliad, the gods and heroes are characterized by having a positive epithet. For example, Achilles is depicted as “with beautiful hair”; conversely, the anti-heroes are characterized by physical distortions, for example, Thersites (the anti-hero par excellence) is described, among other things, as lame in one foot [1]. These are probably primordial traces of kalokagathìa, an expression that would be born in the 5th century BC in Athens, which indicates an ideal of unity between visible physical beauty (kalòs) and (kai), and moral quality (agathòs) [2,3]. The concept of kalokagathia has spread in different fields, from philosophy, with the aesthetics of Plato, to art, with the use of the golden section in painting and sculpture. The Romans received the cultural heritage of the Greeks and this idea of harmony between mind and body continues to influence artistic production [2]. For example, the Roman statues, while differing from the Greek statues because of their greater realism, are still built using the golden section. Starting from late antiquity, the Greco-Roman culture was enslaved to Christianism: physical beauty, although not despised, is temporary and therefore is considered inferior to moral beauty; however, moral beauty is reflected through the body, and therefore beauty is still associated with virtue, and ugliness with vice [4,5]. For this reason, in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, it is possible to find depictions of martyrs and Saints (for example Sant Irene) who are represented as virtuous and beautiful [2,6]. From the Enlightenment onwards, the theme of beauty is disconnected from the theme of religion and is regarded differently according to the field of reference; there is no longer a universal beauty, but there is a subjective beauty that depends on the observer and on the field from which it is investigated [2,4]. Thus, since the Enlightenment, we have passed through epochs exalting the idea of beauty linked to art, then to nature, and then to subjectivity; with the industrial revolution and the advent of the reproducibility of artworks, the theme of beauty is set aside [2,7]. In the Contemporary era, it seems that the two currents, that of the Greek–Roman tradition and that of the Enlightenment tradition, collide, and therefore these two questions arise: is beauty linked to good even in art? Equally, how important are people’s beliefs in aesthetic attribution?Psychology, and especially social psychology, has investigated the relationship between beauty and good through numerous studies showing that people derive, on the one hand, moral inferences from physical beauty and, on the other hand, information relating to morality’s influence upon aesthetic judgments [8,9,10]. However, of all this research, the psychology of art has so far provided no significant additions, although it could contribute to the debate with interesting studies. Research into Saints’ paintings could offer fascinating insights. From the Middle Ages onwards, the paintings of the Saints were proposed to offer devotees models of beautiful and virtuous men [2,4], as can be seen in the representations of St. Sebastian (e.g., San Sebastiano of Botticelli) [11]. However, are Saints perceived as beautiful? There is still no research that has evaluated the aesthetics of the Saints, and yet, knowing how Saints are perceived from an aesthetic point of view would allow us to answer both the question of whether moral beauty is linked to physical beauty, and whether people’s beliefs influence aesthetic evaluation. In brief, if Saints were perceived as aesthetically beautiful, especially by religious people, this fact, on the one hand, would support the relationship between beauty and good, and on the other hand, would confirm that religious beliefs influence aesthetic perception in religious art. The study of Saints’ paintings would also allow us to investigate another little-explored theme in the field of the psychology of art: vitality. There is no precise definition of what vitality is in images, so it is very complex to deal with this theme; however, this concept could be understood as a force that resides within the image that allows the viewer to see the images as if they were alive, and that would depend on both the image itself and on the viewer. It is not a question of factuality, but it is about the reactions to the image and its perception. In the Western world, and particularly in the Catholic world, which encouraged visual art for religious purposes [12], there are various accounts of “vital” artworks, such as statues or paintings that cry or move their eyes [13,14]. In the “Dialogus magnus visionum et miraculorum” by Cesario di Heisterbach, it is possible to find hagiographic stories that also involve art and images. For example, there is a story of a portrait of St. Nicholas, a protector of pregnant women, who, placed in front of a woman in childbirth, turns towards the wall to avoid looking at the birth [13,15]. Interestingly, according to Freedberg [13,16], it is precisely the features of the face (especially the eyes) that give vitality to an image. According to psychology, the face provides fundamental information for interactions between humans [17], and also between humans and robots [18]. However, if it is true that the face is fundamental in everyday interactions, it also seems to be so in images, according to studies on iconoclasm [19,20,21,22]. Iconoclastic movements have often attacked the face, as if the image to be scarred were a real person, as happened, for example, to the painting “Seven Works of Mercy”, by Master of Alkmaar, where the eyes were intentionally targeted. This artwork was damaged during the iconoclastic movements of 1566 when Protestants vandalized Catholic churches [21,22]. Therefore, the vitality of the images is expressed through the face, but from here at least three questions arise. Firstly, is there a difference between religious and secular images? The living images reported by the tales often refer to paintings depicting Saints [13], and therefore it would be interesting to verify if religious images have greater vitality than other types of images. Secondly, does vitality fail if the subjects are represented as dead and with their eyes closed? Practically, it would be interesting to understand whether the attribution of vitality to images could persist even in the absence of the strongest elements of vitality, the eyes [13]. Finally, what relationship, if any, exists between aesthetics, vitality, and beliefs? With these questions in mind, we aimed to investigate whether an image perceived as alive is also seen as beautiful (and vice versa, an image perceived as not very lively is seen as unattractive) [17], and if this relationship can be influenced by religiosity and/or spirituality. The present research aims to investigate the aesthetic evaluation and judgement of vitality in images of faces representing dead Saints and non-Saints. Based on the theoretical background introduced above, it was hypothesized that participants would attribute a higher aesthetic evaluation and a higher vitality judgment to images of dead Saints than dead non-Saints. It was also hypothesized that religious status and spirituality would have some influence on the aesthetic evaluation and the vitality judgment of the image; namely, Catholics and highly spiritual people would express a greater aesthetics and vitality judgment compared to non-Catholics and poor spiritual people. Our hypotheses have been only partially confirmed: the Saints are more beautiful but no more vital than the non-Saints, and there is no correlation between aesthetic and vitality judgments, and the religious and spiritual dimensions.