It is classified as a possible sheela-na-gig, a term used for medieval stone carvings, typically of a female figure in an exhibitionist pose, found on churches and castles across Ireland and Britain. Their precise purpose remains debated; theories range from apotropaic symbols intended to ward off evil, to warnings against lust, to survivals of pre-Christian fertility imagery. This particular carving complicates the category somewhat, since the lower portion of the stone is damaged and broken away at the neck, leaving only the head and a fragment of the neck intact. Without the body, the identification as a sheela-na-gig remains tentative rather than certain.

The carving was noted as early as 1914 and has since been examined by several researchers. The most detailed description comes from P. J. Hartnett, writing in 1954, who recorded that the mouth is open with the tongue protruding slightly and the jaw sharply defined, all of which are features consistent with the sheela-na-gig tradition. Hartnett also observed that this is not the only such carving associated with the site; a companion stone of the same red sandstone, approximately ten inches square, appears to be the work of the same craftsman and was presumably made for the same purpose. The two carvings, he argued, are co-eval, meaning they date from the same period and were likely conceived together. The companion stone's features were described as even better defined than this one.

Weathering has significantly softened the carved details over time, and what Hartnett described with precision in the mid-twentieth century is now considerably harder to read in person. Visitors hoping to make out the open mouth and protruding tongue may find the stone frustratingly worn. A useful alternative is the three-dimensional digital model created by Digital Heritage Age, which is freely accessible on the Sketchfab platform and allows close examination of the surface in a way that the weathered original no longer permits. The carving sits on the south edge of the east gable wall of the church, so approaching from that direction and taking time with the stonework, rather than expecting an immediately obvious figure, is the more realistic way to engage with what remains.