The Shroud of Turin: modern, digitally processed image of the face on the cloth [left] and the full body image as seen on the shroud [right].

The Shroud of Turin: Jesus' Bloodstained Burial Cloth or a Fascinating Forgery?


The Shroud of Turin is believed by many to be the bloodstained burial cloth Jesus of Nazareth was wrapped in after his crucifixion. But skeptics say it is a forgery, or at best only a religious article of historical significance. What can modern research tell us?

The Shroud of Turin , a pale sheet of woven fabric approximately 14-feet (4.5 meters) –long, might be considered unremarkable save for the distinctive reddish-brown markings on its front and back. The image of a prone man with hands folded can be made out on the cloth, with both the front and back views of the head meeting neatly at the middle of the sheet, suggesting it was folded over the front and back of a naked body in death. Countless horrible wounds to the body are revealed through the images on the fabric, from slashes to gouges, piercings, and welts. These images strongly indicate to proponents the evidence of crucifixion and the Biblical description of the death of Jesus. But science and history suggest there’s more to the story.

The full length of the Shroud of Turin. Scientists and scholars cannot resolve the mystery of the shroud.

The full length of the Shroud of Turin. Scientists and scholars cannot resolve the mystery of the shroud. ( Public Domain )

The Hidden History of the Shroud of Turin

Historical record can place the shroud in the late 1300s. Scholars debate its existence previous to 1390, describing the period before that as “very murky territory.” Even during the middle ages there was disagreement over authenticity of the cloth, with written claims at the time between church officials suggesting it was a forgery. However, historians raise the possibility that several such ‘shrouds’ were making the rounds at the time, and forgery claims might have had nothing to do with the cloth found today in the cathedral in Turin, Italy.

Since the 15th century, the existence of that shroud is well documented. It was deeded to the House of Savoy in Italy in 1453, and suffered damage in a fire. Patches and repair-work have been done at various times on the artifact. It was set in a chapel in the 17th century, but it wasn’t until 200 years later that it was put on public display and first photographed.

Full length negatives of the Shroud of Turin.

Full length negatives of the Shroud of Turin. ( Public Domain )

It was these photographs which elevated the cloth from relic to sensation. The photos were not remarkable in and of themselves, until viewed in the reverse negative, whereupon a detailed image of a wounded, bearded man became clearly visible. It had previously been suspected that the stains and images were painted on the linen by an artist at some point in its history, but the discovery of the detailed body image found embedded within the fabric drastically rewrote theories, and convinced many that the images were made through contact with an actual human corpse. Some Christians believe the image was transferred from Jesus’ body onto the cloth with a release of “divine light” or energy upon his resurrection.

A poster advertising the 1898 exhibition of the shroud in Turin. Secondo Pia's photograph was taken a few weeks too late to be included in the poster. The image on the poster includes a painted face, not obtained from Pia's photograph.

A poster advertising the 1898 exhibition of the shroud in Turin. Secondo Pia's photograph was taken a few weeks too late to be included in the poster. The image on the poster includes a painted face, not obtained from Pia's photograph. ( Public Domain )

If this was indeed the death shroud which encased the body of the historical Jesus of Nazareth , that would date the cloth to 30 AD, the biblical date of the death of Jesus. However, this dating is at odds with later historical record, as well as the modern scientific research on the artifact.

Scientific Examinations and Bombshell Revelations

A variety of tests have been carried out on the shroud since scientists were first allowed to examine it in 1969, including physical examinations, chemical analyses, and radiocarbon dating. Initial examinations led to the formation of an 11-member Turin Commission composed of scientists and advisors, and in 1977 the Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP) was born.

Their findings, based on a gamut of rigorous tests, were reported in 1981, stating:

"We can conclude for now that the Shroud image is that of a real human form of a scourged, crucified man. It is not the product of an artist. The blood stains are composed of hemoglobin and also give a positive test for serum albumin. The image is an ongoing mystery and until further chemical studies are made, perhaps by this group of scientists, or perhaps by some scientists in the future, the problem remains unsolved."

The researchers found no sign of artificial pigments, meaning the image had been made by a real human body, but the question of how this had happened was not answered.

Radiocarbon 14 dating of the cloth revealed the shroud material dated to 1260–1390 AD, a bombshell finding, conflicting with the timelines of the death of Jesus. But critics alleged that the samples of fabric that were tested came from more recent patches, rather than the original cloth.

And in 1998 the office of the former Cardinal Archbishop of Turin, Anastasio Alberto Ballestrero, issued a statement that the radiocarbon dating was tampered with in an “overseas Masonic plot.”

Adding to the wealth of strange findings on the enigmatic shroud, Italian researchers in 2015 discovered that the cloth may have been made in India , and contains DNA from all over the world. By sequencing DNA from dust and pollen on the shroud, the origins of people and types of environments that the cloth has come into contact with have been revealed.

It shows that the cloth may have been manufactured in India, and traveled the world before coming to Italy in the Medieval period, giving rise to doubts about a Medieval European origin. Plant types revealed from DNA sequencing included horsetail, clovers, ryegrass and chicory – pointing to origins from Asia, Middle East, or the Americas .

The Body Within

Stains indicate the proposed wounds and blood of the dead man. The images on the cloth are said to show a body damaged by cuts on nearly all surfaces; punctures, gouges and linear wounds can be seen. On one hand a large, round pierce mark is visible, and similar large puncture wounds can be seen in the feet.

The renowned Shroud of Turin, religious relic and mysterious artifact.

The renowned Shroud of Turin, religious relic and mysterious artifact. ( Public Domain )

The man’s bearded face is interpreted to be swollen and misshapen from severe beatings. Stains from blood are seemingly everywhere, especially near the area of the face and both arms.

The Question of Questions – How was the Image Made?

For all the scientific tests, no good answers present themselves on how the image in the shroud came to be, save, as believers would have it, a miracle. It has been determined the images are not painted on, but are imbued within the linen, and numerous attempts have been made to recreate the images, and to reproduce the unusual penetration of the color into the fabric, but have all fallen short. Physicist Paolo Di Lazzaro and leading expert on the phenomenon of the shroud calls this “the question of questions”: how was the image produced?

Di Lazzaro and colleagues used state-of-the-art lasers to direct short, intense bursts of ultraviolet light on raw linen to try to replicate the shroud’s images. In the end they were not successful in matching the shroud’s qualities, nor even could they reproduce a whole human figure. Regardless of the age of the cloth, science cannot duplicate the Shroud of Turin. How was this artifact created so many years ago?

“It is unlikely science will provide a full solution to the many riddles posed by the shroud. A leap of faith over questions without clear answers is necessary—either the ‘faith’ of skeptics, or the faith of believers,” Di Lazzarro told National Geographic in 2015.

3-dimensional model of the Shroud of Turin imprint.

3-dimensional model of the Shroud of Turin imprint. (Flickr/ CC BY 2.0 )

Results of the Most Recent Study

The Shroud of Turin was examined once again in 2018 . This time, forensic investigators used a fresh approach to examine the alleged blood stains on the shroud. Matteo Borrini of John Moores University and Luigi Garlaschelli, an organic scientist, decided to carry out an experiment to see if the shroud is actually fake. They employed a forensic technique called bloodstains pattern analysis (BPA) to see what the necessary arm and body position would have had to have been to make the blood pattern seen on the Shroud of Turin.

A volunteer was enlisted for the experiment. Human and synthetic blood were applied to the person who laid out in various poses over a cloth. Then the blood spatter patterns obtained in the experiment were compared to what is depicted on the shroud.

The results published in the Journal of Forensic Science suggest the Shroud of Turin is almost certainly a fake. They state the BPA was a result of someone adopting several poses and some of the blood on the cloth fell off of someone standing above the shroud. This information contradicts the belief that Jesus was buried in the cloth lying down. They describe the different positions necessary to meet the BPA visible on the shroud as follows:

“The two short rivulets on the back of the left hand of the Shroud are only consistent with a standing subject with arms at a ca 45° angle. This angle is different from that necessary for the forearm stains, which require nearly vertical arms for a standing subject. The BPA of blood visible on the frontal side of the chest (the lance wound) shows that the Shroud represents the bleeding in a realistic manner for a standing position while the stains at the back—of a supposed postmortem bleeding from the same wound for a supine corpse—are totally unrealistic. Simulation of bleeding from the nail wounds contacting wood surfaces yielded unclear results.”

However, the findings have been criticized by at least one forensic scientist, who suggests the BPA could have resulted through the transportation of a corpse in the cloth.

Does the Shroud’s Authenticity Really Matter?

The latest investigation indicate that the Shroud of Turin was most likely one of the many fake religious relics made in Medieval Europe.  But Borrini himself has stated that the status of the shroud as a fake shouldn’t be seen as an attack against the faith of believers.

The cloth’s authenticity has never even been officially declared by the Catholic Church, and it has only been described as a “mirror of the gospel”, and even a “distinguished relic” by Pope John Paul II. As The Independent mentioned following the 2018 discovery, “The official Church position is that the shroud is only an artistic representation of Christ and not a holy relic.”

Nevertheless, the church encourages devotion to it, and the cloth has been protected and venerated by the faithful for centuries. It now sits on display under bulletproof glass in an airtight, environment-controlled case in Turin, northern Italy where it is guarded by cameras, drones, and police.

Philip Ball, former editor of science journal Nature hinted at the shroud’s enduring challenge: “it's fair to say that, despite the seemingly definitive tests in 1988, the status of the Shroud of Turin is murkier than ever. Not least, the nature of the image and how it was fixed on the cloth remain deeply puzzling.” Parts of the puzzle are still unresolved decades later, securing the Shroud of Turin as one of the more controversial and inexplicable relics in history, regardless of its authenticity.

Top Image: The Shroud of Turin: modern, digitally processed image of the face on the cloth [left] and the full body image as seen on the shroud [right]. (CC BY-SA 3.0)

By: Liz Leafloor


Barcaccia, G.  et al.  Uncovering the sources of DNA found on the Turin Shroud.  Sci. Rep.  5, 14484; doi: 10.1038/srep14484 (2015).

Charles Freeman. “The Origins of the Shroud of Turin” 2014. [Online] Available at:

Rhodi Lee. “ Shroud Of Turin Possibly Created In India But Contains DNA From Plants All Over The World: Study. ” 2015. [Online] Available here.

April Holloway. “Could ancient earthquake explain face of Jesus in Shroud of Turin?” 2014. [Online] Available here.

Frank Viviano. “Why Shroud of Turin's Secrets Continue to Elude Science” 2015. [Online] Available here.

Mark Guscin, B.A. M.Phil. "The Sudarium of Oviedo: Its History and Relationship to the Shroud of Turin". 1997. [Online] Available at:


Those articles are fake.

Sir Clerke

Two later additions to Crone's STURP team, John Heller and Alan Adler, published their own peer-reviewed analysis concluding that the stains were blood. STURP members also disputed McCrone's similar conclusion that the Shroud image was painted. They contended (also in peer-reviewed papers) that physical analyses excluded the presence of pigments in sufficient quantities to be accountable for the image. McCrone resigned after being "insulted" by the STURP's reviewers' conclusion that the papers McCrone submitted to be vetted for publication contained data that were "misrepresented", observations that were "highly questionable", and conclusions that were "pontifications" rather than "scientific logic".

"The blood" was tested in the 1990s and shown to be two types of red paint.
ie there was no blood.

Fifth para: “So, even if someone went to great lengths to create such a stunning visual representation of a man interred or otherwise as you’ve done through flour or egg yolk, surely the effort would be reproduced in art or otherwise thereafter? I find it hard to believe that this brand new representation of the human form in medieval times was not reproduced by artists, or even attempted after or before! “

You are asking artists to seize upon and promote a new technology as a means of advancing art. But they were not privy as to how the TS image was produced, that being a closely-guarded secret. Had word of the technology slipped out, the TS could and would have been immediately declared a forgery (as indeed it was by Bishop Henri de Poitiers, but he had to be content with describing the TS as “cunningly painted” suggesting he too had failed to grasp that the artefact was produced by technology, not art).

Nope: I’ve looked at the hypothesis on offer and concluded that the science is more blue-sky thinking than practical chemistry.There’s also precious little if anything to link de Molay with the TS (and I speak with some personal experience of having tried myself to do just that via scorch technology being used as a metaphor for his being roasted to death!). The day the scales fell from my eyes was seeing a veronica-like addition to a the Machy mould, and realizing that the TS image was an attempt to mimic an ancient sweat imprint, but doing so in a way that did not require sweat, or anything that could be seen as a substitute for watery sweat. Instead someone had a technological brainwave: there’s no need to use real or artificial sweat, or indeed anything that is a messy weave-penetrating liquid, like paint or dye or acid. Switch instead to using a fine powder as imprinting medium, imprinted onto wet linen, one that turns yellow when heated to a temperature chosen to get a selective coloration of the imprint (leaving the linen just slightly yellowed – which helps to create an impression of age).

Here’s the second and final instalment in response to your comment, Stuart,
First para: you seem to assume the de Molay theory to be the default position. I suspect you won’t get many takers for that, though you clearly are an enthusiast and disciple. Your Lomax and Knight went out on a limb – good for selling books if backed up with some kind of supportive evidence – though somewhat tendentious re the chemistry as I’ve said before – but to make out it’s now the mainstream is simply not the case. (Are L and K still pursuing their model, or was it a one-off brainwave?).
Second para: You say that de Charny and his wife and whomever else would not have gone to the same trouble as I have done to obtain a crowd-pulling end result.
Oh, but they would, but following an entirely different pathway, one that might be described as getting the technology right, as distinct from the science. I need hardly remind you that there’s a world of difference between technology and science. Technology is concerned purely with getting the desired end-result, something fit-for-intended-purpose, in this instance a faint image on linen that can be claimed to have been formed centuries earlier. Any methodology that generates a faint brown image is worth testing, no matter how far removed from the biblical ‘narrative’. I too could have adopted that approach, but had I done so I’d have made myself an easy target for those who could have said that such and such approach was a waste of time, since it would have been detected by the STURP team’s use of this or that physical or chemical test. In other words, my approach was not only constrained by the science, but has to be that of the scientist, not technologist. I was not free to go dabbling with this or that concoction, on the off-chance that might lead to desired end result.

So how did I finally arrive at the flour model one might ask? Answer: via two entirely different routes that finally converged at the same answer. Both were I would maintain scientific routes, not hit-or-miss technology. I’ll spare you the detail of those two approaches, but can give links to the key steps in my thinking if you’re interested. One came about through trying out ways of making linen more receptive to a contact heat scorch – by impregnating it with dry white flour that produced a local Maillard browning reaction in contact with the hot metal template. The other was to take as starting point the idea that the TS image had been produced by use of acid to discolour fibres, testing sulphuric acid, finding it wanting, switching to nitric acid, getting better coloration, but finally dispensing with acid altogether once it was realized that the target for image formation was not just carbohydrate but probably protein too. Result: add extra protein in the form of white flour, but replace a hot metal template with a cold one, followed by hot oven treatment. The final “recipe” is absurdly simple – imprint with dry flour off a real person onto wet linen, then place in oven. It could have been arrived at by a technologist with no scientific training. But it wasn’t! It required two different scientific trains of thought to get there by methods that may seem painfully slow but which are arguably sure – ones based on known chemical/biochemical models by which linen AND other non-linen plant-based molecules respond to thermal energy to produce Maillard browning reactions due to chemical reaction between protein amino-groups and sugar carbonyl functions,
Third para: But the TS image is also flat and two dimensional. The much trumpeted “3D properties” (a misnomer if ever there was!) only appear when one enters the image into software that converts the map of image density on the xy plane to height on an entirely imaginary vertical z axis. In other words one converts a 2D map to a 3D one purely via digital re-processing. I would also dispute the suggestion that one views the TS as the work of an artist. It’s not. The TS image is an imprint. It’s the work of technologist, deploying imprinting technology. It’s no more art than, say a brass rubbing. Sure, there are ways of getting more or less pleasing end-results, depending on technique, but that’s still not art, more craft.
Fourth para: “But we know the TS was not created as a painting with no evidence of artist pigment.”

More to follow


Next article