Shrouded in Forgery?

25 min readJun 16, 2024

“I Am the Resurrection and the Life“
So when Jesus came, He found that he had already been in the tomb four days. Now Bethany was near Jerusalem, about two miles away. And many of the Jews had joined the women around Martha and Mary, to comfort them concerning their brother. Then Martha, as soon as she heard that Jesus was coming, went and met Him, but Mary was sitting in the house. Now Martha said to Jesus, “Lord, if You had been here, my brother would not have died. But even now I know that whatever You ask of God, God will give You.” Jesus said to her, “Your brother will rise again.” Martha said to Him, “I know that he will rise again in the resurrection at the last day.”
Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in Me, though he may die, he shall live. And whoever lives and believes in Me shall never die. Do you believe this?”
-John 11.17–26

The Shroud Of Turin: A Perfect Forgery?

The Shroud of Turin’s unique characteristics, the image that allegedly dates back two thousand years, is by far the worlds most remarkable and intriguing artifact. The inability to replicate its image using known techniques of modern technologies significantly adds to its mystique. The Jesus Shroud’s qualities present a scientific and historical puzzle that has stumped researchers and scientists.

The challenges in replicating the Shroud’s image, considering the technology and knowledge available today, highlights the importance of the shroud. The lack of definitive answers regarding the image’s origin, formation, and the specific processes involved contribute the awesome thought that this is most likely the first (and so far only) selfie that God took… Scientific investigations, ranging from forensic analysis, historical records, geological analysis to advanced imaging techniques, aim to reveal the secrets of the Shroud. So far, not a single answer has been provided…..

The religious significance of the Shroud is a primary driver of interest for some, but the ancient Jewish burial shroud is a subject worthy of interest for just about anyone.

Why isn’t the shroud of MORE interst than it is?

The level of interest in artifacts is obviously personal, not everyone has the same level of interest it goes without saying, but what I am curious about is the level of disinterest from a scientific standpoint.

While the Shroud of Turin holds significant importance for religious communities, regardless of if it is authentic or not, that is not the case for “outsiders” of the chrsistian faith. Due to the shroud for so long long having been perceived as a forgery, it has not attracted the same level of widespread interest as some other artifacts from ancient civilizations, such as papyri or mummies from the Egyptian eras. The 1988 radiocarbon dating that solidified the shouds fate as a fake, however, is flawed.

There is new information that says that the shroud in fact dates from the first century BC…. What now?

It is my observation that the level of disinterest is caused by significant blindspots in the unbeleivers eye. The atheists and all of those who are not christian, let’s say all of those who have a vested interest in an anti-christian worldview push a preconceived opinion that the shroud is a forgery, and they seem hellbent on proving it against all evidence.

The truth of the shroud is that we still don’t know how this image formed.

That ALONE should be enough to give a you pause. (We don’t know who the image is of either, but let’s start with the how)

How did a negative form a cloth? If it is a fake, it is still a remarkeable fake, and the how has not been answered …. and it is 2024 … we should be able to answer this question by now.

These are some reasone why I believ that there is a total lack of interest:

1. Religious Significance:

Like I stated, anyone who is anything other than chrsitian, including the atheists, have a vested interst in this being a fake. The primary appeal (or repel) of the Shroud seems to lie in its religious significance, particularly for Christians who associate it with the burial cloth of Jesus Christ. This is the one and only artifact that can PROVE that Jesus was who he said he was, due to its connection to a key event in Christian theology. The resurerrection of Christ. The interest should be much more widespread, regardless of our beleifs, the fact that we have an impossible image on a piece of burial cloth, SHOULD be intriguing to everyone.

2. Controversial Nature:

People seem to be hesitant to fully engage with or promote an artifact that remains contentious in scientific circles. Interest can concern ANY religion, BUT NOT chrsitianity. Not Jesus. This is where everyone except christians draw a line. It is strange, but it is very real. I can think of no other reason for the “shroud denial” in science.

Christianty is perhaps a controversial topic? It is fine to discuss ancient mythological Gods and various artefacts, because we know that they are not real. We know that dieties ar not real. We don’t care if a prophet is real of not, because the prophesy can still be false. (a prophet is just a human) But this image? Well it is a different story, because if it is authentic, suddeny Jesus might be real. This is a problem.

3. Limited Accessibility:

The Shroud is preserved in Turin, Italy, and is not always on public display. Limited accessibility may contribute to a lower profile compared to artifacts that are more regularly exhibited in museums around the world.

4. Artistic and Scientific Aspects:

While the scientific aspects of the Shroud are intriguing to researchers, the general public might not be as captivated. Scientific discussions about the image formation and forensic details may not resonate as broadly as more visually striking artifacts, such as for example mummies.

5. Cultural Awareness:

Some artifacts gain widespread attention due to their connection to well-known ancient civilizations, such as ancient Egypt or Greece. The Shroud, being associated with a specific religious context, may not have the same universal appeal.

6. Perception of Authenticity:

Finally, the most important reason for lack of interest is the ongoing debate over the Shroud’s authenticity, re-inforced by the 1988 radiocarbon dating contribute to a level of skepticism among individuals. A fake is of no interest to anyone.

The myth of the “fake shroud” was kept up by the British Museum who hid the raw data from the radiocarbon dating from the public until very recently. Why this need to perpetuate the myth of “fake”?

Let’s have a Look at the Methods of investigation:

Investigations into the Shroud of Turin have employed various scientific methods to study its origin, composition, and the image it bears.

Photography:

This is where is all began really. The first photograph of the Shroud of Turin was taken in 1898 by an Italian photographer named Secondo Pia.

When Pia developed the photographic plates, he discovered that the negative image of the photograph revealed a much clearer and more detailed representation of the figure on the shroud than could be seen with the naked eye on the cloth itself.

This startling revelation indicated that the faint and indistinct image on the shroud acts like a photographic negative. The photograph showed details of the face and body of a figure with a clarity and contrast that were not apparent on the cloth when viewed directly.

Long before the first photograph was taken, the shroud was STILL considered to be the burial shroud of Jesus. For example, healing miracles were attributed to the shroud. There have been numerous claims of physical healings and miraculous recoveries by pilgrims who visited the shroud.!

As the first photograph taken by Pia with the image on the shroud appearing much clearer and more detailed in the photographic negative, interest in the shroud sparked. This revelation seemed to confirm the divine nature of the image. In fact, the shroud’s image, with its detailed negative and the three-dimensional qualities, is something that modern science struggles to explain.

The lack of pigments, dyes, or paints, and the unclear method by which the image could have been created even with todays technology sparked curiosity. As we will see later, high-resolution photography has since been used to capture detailed images of the Shroud, and wow is it startling! We will go over that shortly, but first, let’s talk about the now infamous radiocarbon (C 14 ) dating.

The Radiocarbon Dating Results:

Radiocarbon dating has been a significant method to determine the age of the Shroud by analyzing the carbon isotopes present in the fabric.

The 1988 C14 dating of the Shroud of Turin suggested a medieval origin, but the release of raw data and subsequent analysis have raised significant doubts about the accuracy of these results. The precise dating of the cloth remains as uncertain as before. The C14 dating is debunked and we are back to square one.

A note here, the relevancy of carbon dating, it increases with age, and an object ideal for C14 dating is between 6,000 and 50,000 years old. IF the shroud was 2000 years old it would not be suitable for C14, dating, and certainly not if it was only 700 years old, since the margin of error at that age is several hundred years.

These are the specific concerns about the reliability of the C14 dating:

Sampling Issues: The sample for radiocarbon dating was taken from only one small area of the Shroud. This is problematic because that area may not represent the entire cloth (during its lifetime the shroud has undegone repairs, it has been trhough fires and new weave has been introduced). Chemical tests and spectroscopy showed that this specific sample was different from the rest of the Shroud.
Contamination Problems: Textiles like the Shroud are hard to clean properly, and over the centuries, it may have been contaminated in ways that affect dating results
Statistical Analysis: Detailed statistical analyses of the data show inconsistencies in the ages determined from different parts of the Shroud. These inconsistencies suggest that the original conclusion, that the Shroud is definitively from the medieval period, might be incorrect. While initial tests suggested the Shroud was from the Middle Ages, various issues with sampling, contamination, and data analysis mean this conclusion should be reconsidered. The true age and origin of the Shroud remain uncertain.
Margin of error: The margin of error for an object less than 600 years old is several hundred years.

Conflict Between Disciplines: The carbon dating of the Shroud of Turin suggests it dates from 1260–1390 AD, but almost all other evidence from various scientific disciplines indicates that it couldn’t have been produced by a medieval forger, as you will see. This creates a significant conflict.

Radiocarbon dating’s margin of error for samples aged between 700 and 2000 years can be several hundred years, the flaws in the sample selection and the contamination of repair threads, leads to the necessary conclusion thatthe carbon dating results are invalid.

The Fabric Of The Shroud

The Shroud of Turin is made of linen, a textile woven from flax fibers. The composition of the fabric itself does not provide a direct indication of its age, as linen has been used for textiles for thousands of years. However, detailed analysis of the linen fibers can offer insights into the type of linen and potentially its geographical origin.

The style of weaving, including the weave pattern and thread count, can be analyzed to determine the weaving techniques employed. Different historical periods and regions had characteristic weaving styles, and experts can study these features to gain information about the possible time and place of manufacture.

The herringbone weave pattern of the Shroud has been a focal point in such analyses. This complex pattern has led some researchers to argue that it would have been challenging to replicate in medieval times, suggesting a possible earlier origin. Others propose that the weave could be a result of intentional artistic techniques, perhaps designed to create a particular visual effect? This seems to be above and beyond for a medeival forgery attmpt but let’s take all arguments into consideration nonetheless.

Additionally, the presence of repaired or rewoven parts on the Shroud is crucial in dating the artifact. When damage occurs over time, repairs may be made using materials or weaving techniques consistent with the time of repair. Analyzing these repairs can potentially provide information about the Shroud’s history and the periods when repairs were made.

The most significant repair analysis relates to the radiocarbon dating conducted in 1988. This analysis suggested a medieval origin for the Shroud, dating it to approximately 1260–1390 AD, the validity of this dating of course now in question. Tthe sampled area may have been from a later repair rather than the original fabric, thus additionally skewing the results. This controversy highlights the importance of understanding the age of the repaired areas versus the age of the original linen.

The linen composition of the Shroud of Turin provides limited direct information regarding its age, the fabric’s style of weaving and the presence of repairs offer critical insights. The weave pattern, particularly its complexity, and the linen analysis suggest a first century Judean / Palestinian origin. In contrast, the repairs, notably using cotton threads, indicate later additions. Together, these elements provide a nuanced timeline of the Shroud’s history and usage, revealing a blend of ancient origins and subsequent interventions.

Microscopic Examination:

Microscopes have been used to examine the fibers and details of the Shroud at a microscopic level.

Scientists studied the Shroud of Turin to find out what kinds of plants have touched it. They used a method to look for tiny bits of DNA from plants. (DNA is the code inside all living things that makes them what they are.) Here’s what they found:

Lots of Plant DNA: They found more than 100 pieces of plant DNA and were able to figure out what plants about 77 of those pieces came from. They discovered 19 different kinds of plants.
Different Plants in Different Places: The DNA came from different parts of the Shroud. For example, the edge of the Shroud had DNA from 16 different plants. Other parts, like where the hands, face, and feet of the body image are, had DNA from a few specific plants.
Face: Plant DNA found in the area corresponding to the face includes species associated with the Middle East, such as:
Pistacia: Common in Mediterranean regions.
Helichrysum: Often found in the Mediterranean and Middle Eastern areas.
Hands and Feet: The DNA from plants found in these areas is more specific and includes:
Rhamnus: Known to grow in regions around the Mediterranean.
Cistus: Also known as rockrose, typically found in the Mediterranean basin.
Where the Plants Are From: The plants include:

Common Weeds and Crops: Like clovers and grasses that grow in many places.
Trees and Shrubs: Like spruce trees and walnuts that are found in Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East.
Plants from Faraway Places: Some plants are originally from Eastern Asia, and weren’t in Europe until later.

4. Travel and Trade: Some plants found on the Shroud came to Europe after the time of Columbus or Marco Polo. This shows that it was in certain locations only after specific timeframes, thus coming into contact with a certain varieties of plants.

Scientists also studied the Shroud of Turin to see what kinds of human DNA they could find on it, if any. They looked specifically at a type of DNA called “mtDNA,” which is passed down from mothers. Here’s what they found:

Human DNA Found: They found a lot of different pieces of human DNA on the Shroud. These pieces came from many different people.

Different DNA Types: The DNA they found belonged to different “haplogroups.” Haplogroups are like big family groups that show where people’s ancestors came from a long time ago. The scientists found DNA from many different haplogroups, meaning people from various places left their DNA on the Shroud.

Many Haplogroups Identified:

Common in Europe: Some haplogroups, like H1, are common in Western Europe, especially among people in Spain and Portugal.
Spread Out: Others, like H4, are found in different parts of Europe, the Caucasus region, and the Near East. The majority of DNA was represented by these two groups.
Rare Groups: Some, like H33, are very rare and mostly found among the Druze people in the Middle East.
South Asia: Haplogroups like U2 are common in South Asia, and U5 is found in Europe.
Middle East and Africa: Haplogroups like R0a are common in the Arabian Peninsula and East Africa, while L3c is found in East Africa.
India: Haplogroups like M39, M56, R7, and R8 are typical of India.

Geographic Spread: The different haplogroups found on the Shroud indicate that people from Europe, North and East Africa, the Middle East, and India all left their DNA on it. This suggests the Shroud has been in contact with people from many different places.

Just based on the microscopic examination we are left with two Main Theories:

Medieval Europe: One theory is that the Shroud was made in the Middle Ages (around 1260–1390 AD) in Western Europe. If this is true, the DNA found on it could have come from people in Europe and nearby areas over the last 800 years.
Ancient Journey: Another theory is that the Shroud is much older and originally came from Jerusalem around the time of Jesus (30 or 33 AD). According to this theory, the Shroud traveled through various regions, including the Middle East and Europe, over the last 2000 years, collecting DNA from people in these areas.

Spruce DNA: The most common plant DNA found on the Shroud is from spruce trees, especially a type of spruce that grows in the Alps. This supports the idea that the Shroud traveled through the French-Italian Alps in the 1500s.
Geographic Clues: By looking at the types of DNA found, scientists can guess where the Shroud has been. For example, the presence of Indian haplogroups suggests that people from India might have come into contact with the Shroud, or perhaps the cloth itself came from India.
Historical Path: If the Shroud came from Jerusalem, it might have traveled through Turkey, France, and Italy, picking up DNA from people in these regions. If it was made in medieval Europe, it might have mostly been touched by people from Europe, with some visitors from other places.

Forensics! A death investigation:

The Shroud of Turin has been extensively studied for evidence of crucifixion. Various forensic analyses and experiments have been conducted to understand the bloodstains and patterns on the Shroud, which indicate the man it wrapped has undergone crucifixion.

Evidence of Crucifixion on the Shroud of Turin

Bloodstain Patterns on the Forearms:

Characteristics: The bloodstains on the forearms show a distinctive branching pattern, which forensic experts believe is consistent with blood flow from wounds on the hands or wrists while the arms were elevated, as they would be during crucifixion.
Experimental Findings: Experiments have shown that such branching patterns are difficult to recreate unless the arms are in a specific position that allows gravity to guide the blood flow. This is suggestive of the arms being stretched out, as in crucifixion.

Bloodstains on the Hands and Wrists:

Wrist Bloodstain: A significant bloodstain on the left wrist aligns with where a nail would have been placed during crucifixion. Experiments replicating this pattern indicate that it can be produced by slowly turning the wrist upwards and to the side, consistent with the positioning of a crucified person.
Multiple Flow Patterns: The presence of multiple, parallel streaks of blood on the dorsal side of the forearms, particularly evident on the left wrist, suggests the man’s hands were nailed in a way that allowed the blood to flow along the arms during the crucifixion and subsequent movements.

Positioning and Movements:

Elevated Arm Position: The blood flow patterns indicate that the arms were elevated, supporting the hypothesis that the man was hanging with his arms stretched out. The angles and directions of the blood flow correspond to a person in a crucified position.
Postmortem Movements: The distinct branching patterns could also result from movements after death, such as being taken down from the cross and carried to a burial site. The experiments demonstrated that jerky movements of the arms can create similar blood flow patterns.

Influence of Additional Factors:

Oiled Skin: The application of oily substances to the skin was found to facilitate the branching of blood flows. This might correlate with the historical account of Jesus being anointed with oils after his death.
Scourging Wounds: The analysis also considered the impact of scourging wounds, which could have influenced the flow patterns. Blood from these deeper wounds could have mixed with the blood from the crucifixion wounds, contributing to the patterns seen on the Shroud.

Consistency with Historical Accounts:

The patterns and locations of the bloodstains are consistent with the injuries described in the New Testament accounts of Jesus’ crucifixion. This includes wounds on the wrists (or hands) and feet, as well as marks from scourging.

The bloodstain patterns on the Shroud of Turin, particularly those on the forearms, hands, and wrists, provide compelling forensic evidence that the man wrapped in the Shroud was crucified. While no single piece of evidence can definitively prove the Shroud’s authenticity or the identity of the person it wrapped, the forensic analysis strongly supports the hypothesis that the man depicted on the Shroud endured crucifixion.

Blood Type Identification:

The chemical and biological analyses of the Shroud of Turin, including blood type identification and DNA analysis, have revealed significant information. The presence of type AB blood and diverse DNA sequences, including those consistent with Middle Eastern populations, supports the historical claims about the Shroud’s origins and journey. However, contamination and the complex history of the Shroud necessitate careful interpretation of these results. These findings contribute to the larger body of evidence.

NEW investigation! A 2022: X-ray Examination:

X-ray imaging has been used to study the internal structure of the Shroud without physically altering it. A study published on April 11, 2022, used X-ray technology to date the Shroud of Turin, suggesting it is 2,000 years old, contrary to the medieval origin suggested by the disputed 1988 carbon-14 analysis. The X-ray technique, which measures the natural aging of linen cellulose, provided more precise results by requiring smaller samples and reducing contamination risks. The findings matched the age of linen sample from the siege of Masada (55–74 AD), challenging the medieval hypothesis. Further studies are planned to confirm these results, adding to existing evidence such as unique pollens and the unexplained negative image of a body on the Shroud.

Scientists used a special kind of X-ray called Wide-Angle X-ray Scattering (WAXS) to look at the tiny parts inside the cloth. This helps to see how much the cloth has changed over time. They took a very small piece of the Shroud, about the size of a tiny breadcrumb, from a corner. They compared it to other old pieces of linen from a known times in history starting with as old as 3000 BC.

What They Found

The changes they saw in the Shroud’s linen matched the changes in the very old linen, specifically linen from the first centruy.

Conditions Needed:

For the Shroud to be so old and still look like it does today, it must have been kept in places that were just the right temperature (like 20–22.5°C) and humidity (not too wet, not too dry) for a long time.

Infra-Red reflectance photography and thermography and Ultraviolet Imaging:

Infra-Red reflectance photography and thermography and Ultraviolet Imaging techniques have been employed to reveal hidden details and features on the Shroud. The research on ultraviolet fluorescence photography of the Shroud of Turin concludes:

Intimate Contact: The detailed scourge marks suggest the cloth was in close contact with a body.
Image Consistency: Subtle details of the image, which are not easily seen in visible light, become clearer, providing better analysis of the faint body image. The slight difference in image detail between the front and back suggests that weight differences didn’t significantly affect the image formation.
Substance Transfer: Contact may have transferred substances from the skin to the cloth, causing darkened areas that form the image.
Scorch and Paint Theories: UV photography contradicts theories that the image was created by scorching or painting. It shows the extent of damage caused by fire, water, and other factors over the centuries to the fabric.
Unexplained Details: The UV images show details, like unique burn holes and areas where the image fades, and the thermal properties of the fabric, showing how heat is distributed across the Shroud, and areas with different thermal conductivities, such as patches.
Linen Properties: 1. Some parts of the linen did not develop an image. 2. Understanding the weave pattern and the structure of the linen. Identifying anomalies or inconsistencies in the fabric, such as repairs, patches, and different types of thread used in the fabric, distinguishing newer materials from the original linen.
Side Strip: The side strip appears to be originally part of the main cloth.
Blood Serum: Highlights pigments or dyes, distinguishing them from natural blood or other substances Lighter areas around bloodstains suggest the presence of blood serum, which might have affected the image development.
Water Stain Analysis: Blood particles were found in water-stained areas and between the head images, indicating interaction with blood.

Digital Enhancement of the Image of the Man in The Shroud

Digital technologies have been utilized to enhance and analyze images of the Shroud for a more detailed examination. I think images speak louder than words here. …. How is this image on a piece of cloth from the first century?

Artistic Enhancement

Is this the face of Jesus?

Ai Re-imagines the Man in the Shroud:

3D Mapping:

Three-dimensional mapping techniques have been applied to create detailed maps of the Shroud’s surface. Three-dimensional (3D) mapping is a technique for creating detailed representations of objects by capturing their spatial data through methods like photogrammetry, laser scanning, and structured light scanning. This process involves acquiring data points to generate a point cloud, constructing a mesh, and applying textures to visualize the object in 3D.

Applied to the Shroud, 3D mapping enables precise analysis of its contours and features, monitors changes over time, and facilitates virtual preservation without physical handling. This non-invasive method enhances the study of the Shroud’s surface, revealing intricate details and aiding in preservation efforts through detailed digital archives. What was learned from the 3D mapping is as follows:

Complexity of the Shroud: The microscopic details of the Shroud of Turin are so intricate that they couldn’t have been made by a medieval forger, even though carbon dating suggests it dates from 1260–1390 AD. This simply must be weighted against the mounting evidence that the shroud is much older than previously thought, and that it is not a possible medeival forgery. If it is not a forgery, it must be authentic. But authentically what?
Contradiction in Evidence: There’s a conflict between the Shroud’s detailed image (which seems impossible to forge) and the carbon dating results. This suggests that the 2022 x-ray imaging wich supports a first centruy origin is more likely to be accurate.
Reproduction Challenges: The team has managed to recreate some of the Shroud’s microscopic features using advanced technology, but they haven’t been able to reproduce the entire image. The unique and complex nature of the Shroud was impossible to produce even if the middle ages if it was a forgery, let alone in the first century if it is the authentic shroud of Jesus. It is impossible to reproduce until this date, so it looks like we are looking at a bonafide mystery.

Computer Simulations:

Computer modeling and simulations have been critical tools in exploring the Shroud of Turin’s image formation. These simulations have tested various hypotheses and attempted to replicate the unique characteristics of the Shroud’s image. Here are some key findings from these studies:

Computer modeling and simulations have been instrumental in exploring the Shroud of Turin’s image formation, testing various hypotheses and attempting to replicate its unique characteristics.

Key findings include the possibility of the image being formed by radiation or heat bursts, chemical reactions such as Maillard reactions. Photographic and light interaction models suggest the Shroud could act like a primitive photograph, capturing depth variations that encode three-dimensional information about the body. Detailed digital analyses confirm the absence of directionality and highlight the high resolution of the image, challenging the notion of manual creation. These findings indicate the Shroud’s image formation, might be caused by multiple mechanisms or an unknown process.

Hypotheses for Image Formation

Radiation Hypothesis:

Concept: One prominent theory is that the image was formed by some form of radiation, such as ultraviolet light or proton emission.
Simulation Findings: Computer models have simulated radiation effects, suggesting that a burst of energy could produce an image with the depth and resolution observed on the Shroud. These models show that radiation can create a superficial discoloration of the linen fibers without penetrating deeply, consistent with the image on the Shroud.

Thermal and Chemical Reactions:

Concept: Another hypothesis involves the Maillard reaction, a chemical process between amino acids and reducing sugars in the linen, possibly accelerated by body heat and decomposition gases.
Simulation Findings: Simulations have demonstrated that this reaction could potentially explain the coloration and distribution of the image. The models show how chemical compounds interacting with the linen can create a light, superficial discoloration mimicking the body’s contours. Nothing similar to the complex image of the shroud though.

Contact and Transfer Hypotheses:

Concept: Some theories propose that the image was formed through direct contact with a body coated in substances such as oils, sweat, or other chemicals.
Simulation Findings: Computer models simulating direct contact have shown that while contact can transfer substances to the cloth, it does not easily account for the high-resolution, three-dimensional quality of the Shroud’s image. The contact hypothesis produces images with less detail and more smearing.

Environmental Influences:

Concept: The environment in which the Shroud was stored could have influenced image formation through factors like temperature, humidity, and microbial activity.
Simulation Findings: Environmental models suggest that conditions such as high humidity and warmth could facilitate certain chemical reactions. However, these conditions alone are not reproduceable, and can not easily account for the image without additional factors.

Key Findings from Simulations

Three-Dimensional Information:

The Shroud’s image contains three-dimensional information about the body, meaning the intensity of the image varies with the distance from the cloth to the body. Computer models have replicated this by varying the exposure or interaction intensity based on distance, supporting theories involving radiation or chemical diffusion rather than direct contact alone.

Superficial Nature of the Image:

Simulations have confirmed that the image resides on the very surface of the fibers, affecting only the topmost layer without penetrating deeper. This supports hypotheses involving surface-level interactions like radiation or gaseous reactions rather than liquid contact.

Resolution and Detail:

The high resolution and fine detail of the image, such as the distinct outline of facial features and wounds, have been impossible to reproduce in simulations using simple contact or chemical diffusion. This has led researchers to favor more complex models involving precise energy delivery, such as radiation bursts.

Uniformity of Image Formation:

Models have shown that the uniformity of the image, with consistent coloration across various parts of the cloth, is challenging to achieve with irregular physical contact or uneven chemical application. This uniformity supports theories involving evenly distributed energy fields.

Historical and Artistic Analysis:

Art historians and experts in historical textiles have analyzed the Shroud from an artistic and historical perspective. What they have found is two-fold:

Firstly, the shroud seems to have influenced depictions of Jesus, altering artistic renditions of his likeness.

Secondly, there are preexisting images clearly resembling the Shroud, suggesting an earlier origin for its image. This suggests that the c14 dating is false, since it puts the date prior to the c14 datings earliest possible date of 1260 AD.

The Shroud of Turin has had a clear impact on how Jesus was portrayed in art. It influenced artistic renditions, leading to significant changes in depictions of Jesus.

2. Artworks predating the Shroud exhibit striking resemblances to its image, suggesting an earlier origin.

Comparison between the face of the Shroud, photographic positive (on the left) and photographic negative (on the right), and the face of Christ in the catacombs of Pontian, Rome, 8 th century (in the middle), by Emanuella Marinelli:

(More image comparisons on Researchgate, if you follow the link above.)

Face of the Veil of Manoppello

The Hungarian Pray Codex : 1192–1195 AD

The real takeaway from these artisitic renditions of Jesus is of course that the shroud of Turin has influenced how Jesus is depicted since before the shrouds earliest possible radiocarbon dating of 1260 CE.

Is The Man Laying Flat or in a Standing Pose?

The body in the image on the Shroud of Turin appears to be lying flat. The image depicts a frontal and dorsal view of a human figure with arms crossed over the pelvic area, consistent with the traditional depiction of a crucified person who has been laid out for burial. The posture is that of a supine position, where the body is lying horizontally on its back.

This supine position aligns with the narrative of Jesus’ crucifixion and subsequent burial as described in Christian tradition. The crossed arms, wounds on the wrists and feet, and other features are interpreted by believers as corresponding to the biblical account of Jesus’ crucifixion and entombment. However, the traditional and widely accepted view that the Shroud of Turin shows the body of a person in a supine position, some details, such as the apparent flow of hair and facial features, have led to different interpretations. Here are some considerations:

Hair Flow:

Some observers have noted that the hair on the Shroud appears to hang down as if the body were in an upright position. This has led to discussions about whether the image reflects the effects of gravity on the hair and whether it aligns with the typical appearance of hair on a person lying flat.

Facial Features:

The facial features on the Shroud, including the nose, mouth, and eyes, have been analyzed. Some interpretations suggest that the facial features seem consistent with an upright position, prompting questions about the alignment of the face within the overall posture of the body.

Three-Dimensional Analysis:

Three-dimensional analysis of the Shroud image that were conducted to examine the spatial characteristics of the features, including the hair and face, led to discussions about the consistency or inconsistency of the image with natural anatomical expectations.