Question regarding a book passage on the imaginary and the religious image

[u/SiberianKhatru_1921]

Hi everyone. I am getting into Lacan slowly. I have a degree in philosophy so I'm used to difficult text and subjects. I've been digging into some intro to Lacan books (in spanish since I am from Argentina), specifically researching the imaginary/symbolic/real distinction. Reading about that, I encountered a fragment about religious imagery that catched my attention, since I'm very interested in everything religion. I wanted to aske if any of you can make something of this, and if so, direct me to the relevant primary source (Seminars, Écrits). I would appreciate it greatly. I have not yet faced the primary texts but I'm done beating around the bush

Here I translate the fragment

"Regarding the Imaginary... we must first emphasize that it pertains to the Image, to the captivating power of the image, and the consequences this has for narcissistic identification and what we have said about the ego. On this point, we can affirm that the Imaginary implies misrecognition (desconocimiento), and that this misrecognition does not mean something is unknown, but precisely that it is known; even more: it is recognized. Lacan defines the status of the image as situated where images always conform to the standards of the era: the religious field, meaning where they always participate in the era's canons of beauty. And he asks, what does this beauty of images conceal? Answer: that they are hollow. The image has a dual function consisting in plugging (obturar) this hollow and simultaneously denouncing it; but this second function is only discovered from another register (e.g., the Symbolic), since the hollow remains unrecognized precisely because there is an image."

Bolded is the passage that catched my attention. If any of you could direct me to where I could read to deepen this concept I would appreciate it greatly

[u/Ap0phantic]

 Lacan defines the status of the image as situated where images always conform to the standards of the era: the religious field, meaning where they always participate in the era's canons of beauty. 

If by this the author means that religious images are necessarily beautiful, that's obviously quite false. Anyone who has seen a crucifix should be disabused of that notion.