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:


Have just done a quickie experiment to ascertain how different the TS face might look if it had been obtained by contact-imprinting, resulting in some lateral expansion (see earlier). It's a crude experiment, admittedly, but a photo of the as-is TS image on plain paper was stuck to the side of a wine bottle so as to cover about a third of the circumference, then re-photographed.

That's the regular image (left) from Shroud Scope on the left versus the ssumption-laden curvature-adjusted image (right).

So which is the correct one - the fuller face, or the leaner sallow look? I leave it to readers to judge.

PS: For the sake of completeness, I ought perhaps to say there's another means available, at least in principle, to imprint off a 3D template with minimal 2D image distortion, at least one without 'sticky-out' bits (like that problematical nose we all come equipped with).

What one does is to invert the geometry. Instead of laying the subject down and spreading linen on top, one spreads the linen over some kind of underlay with plenty of 'give' (but not too much) and presses the template DOWN into the linen.

Now you might think that would cause too much wrap-around effect, giving rise to the dreaded lateral distortion. But if you take, say, a Cola bottle as your model template, and press it down sideways into linen spread over several layers of woollen jerseys, you may get a surprise. Such is the resistance of wool to being compressed that one can only "bury" about a third of the bottle's circumference, such that any attempt to capture raised relief (like one has on a coke bottle) results in a partial imprinting only.

Now here's the interesting part: recalling school maths, with circumference = 2pi times r, an imprint from just 1/3rd (approx) of a circumference when opened out and laid flat has a width that is the full diameter of the bottle! So the imprint looks like one that is the full- width of bottle when in fact it's captured just a third of the relief. In the case of the human face, admittedly not perfectly cylindrical, the result is a passable imitation of the face with "correct" width, but the eyes a bit further apart than they should be (easily overlooked) but - the giveaway) - severe image cutoffs at both sides of the face, approx at cheekbone level, with no prospect of imprinting the ears.

Ring any bells? Yup, that's precisely what one sees with the TS face - sharp cut-offs left and right to give a mask-like appearance, with missing ears! So that mean ol' wrap-around effect can actually be made to work to one's advantage - whether TS modeller Mark 1 (mid 14th century) or internet-modeller Mk2 (early 21st century).

There's a caveat if adopting the above routine, ie. inverted press-down imprinting, with a real human face. One needs to choose someone with a snub-nose. If the nose is too pointy, one's imprint is likely to have some tell-tale creases radiating diuagonally-downwards from the tip of the nose. The linen gets rucked, and it happens 'out-of-sight'.

That's why I went for the original "face-up" mode of imprinting, but using the imprinting medium (flour sprinkled onto an oil-coated face) to keep the imprinting restricted to the highest relief only (i.e. by carefully wiping the medium off the extremities of the face where the frontal plane curves round to each side i.e.receding plane, which is where one wants the imprinting to stop). The linen can be stretched in upright mode around and beneath the chin, avoiding those diagonal creases, but introducing a new one - approx horizontal at chin level, maybe with a kink in the middle. Again, ring any bells?

Can't get round the distortion problem with a real human face you say?

That's what Itoo thought for the best part of 4 years, Allen, tending to believe Luigi Garlaschelli when he said a shallow bas relief would have needed to be used for the face. But then I got to wondering if it might be possible to imprint off a human face as if it were a bas relief, i.e. capturing the highest relief only.

Some recent experimentation has given some promising answers. One selects an imprinting medium to smear over one's face that is then 'tidied up' so to speak, i.e. wiping it off all the places you DONT want imprinted, like the sides of the face. You then press your coated face into taut outstretched linen, so as to capture the facial equivalent of a shallow footprint in the sand, a pseudo bas relief so to speak. Hey presto you have your distortion-free imprint, it not mattering whether the linen wrapped around the side of your face, provided there was no medium there to imprint.

Where there's a will, to say nothing of big reward for a successsful medieval-era outcome, there's a way.

See this, my latest posting, for practical details, using oil/dry white flour imprinting onto wet linen, followed by oven-roasting to model the TS.

As should be clear from my earlier comments. You can't get past the distortion problem.
Appreciate the terms, thanks!
“lateral distortion”
“wrap-around effect”.
"Agamemnon mask-effect"

Two years ago or so, I would have agreed with you Stuart that the image on the TS was NOT that of the crucified Jesus, but an artist's portrayal of the barbecued Jacques de Molay.

But it was necessary to account for the crucifixion paraphernalia (yes, clearly visible have to say, as do others) on the Lirey medallion, despite its small size (6cm x 4cm). I got round that by supposing that the body image was imprinted first, using a hot metal template - the so-called "scorch hypothesis" - target I might add for much ill-informed and frankly hostile, mainly pseudoscientific criticism- and displayed secretivelly in Templar initiation rites etc as described in somewhat vague terms by Barbara Frale.

Later, maybe a few decades, the potential of the image was realized as a lucrative draw for pilgrims to de Charny's 'private' chapel at his Lirey country seat, read cash cow for a chivalrous knight with a predilection for getting captured and ransomed by the English foe (twice!). Yes, It may have been displayed initially by de Charny himself, maybe without deception as a 'liturgical prop' in conjunction with something else - like a wooden statue of the crucified Jesus, as suggested recently on the lapsed shroudstory site by BSTS Editor Hugh Farey OR maybe by his widow, immediately following her hubby's death at the Battle of Poitiers in 1356.

The re-invention required addition of blood including those 372 scourge marks in all the right places - while noting the Adler/Heller claim that blood was imprinted BEFORE body image - but there's a possible flaw in their interpretation of the experimental observations under the microscope that can wait for now.

In other words, I was suggesting that a Mark 1 Templar exhibit was re-invented and Christianized so to speak, it being handy that Jacques de Molay and Jesus were both reputed to have facial hair (we'll gloss over the age difference, and/or whether the faint negative image allows one to estimate age at time of death).

So what suddenly caused me to drop the Templar connection altogether, and with it the idea that the image was a simple contact scorch from a hot metal template? Answer: the Machy mould for a Lirey medallion that followed ( or possibly preceded) the one that is in the Cluny Museum in Paris.

Are you au fait with Ian Wilson's two monograph (pdf) articles in BSTS newsletters on the Machy mould? I expect you are, being well-informed, but I'd be happy to provide a short summary and overview on my previous postings on the subjec if you wish.

The key feature, replacing the crucifixion paraphernalia on the Cluny badge is the addition of what Wilson describes as a "disembodied face" above the word SUAIRE ("shroud"). Curiously he fails to link the two, despite being next to each other, but I think I know why they were added.

Think another contact imprint, arguably more legend than history, a supposed "holy relic", immediate smaller-scale antecedent of the TS, one that was drawing huge numbers of cure-seeking, indulgence-paying pilgrims to Rome in the 1350s, the subject of a posting on this very site in December last year, one to which I'm presently composing a belated response!

Best stop here. Now back to that other 'holy relic'.


Next article