NEW Scientific Evidence in Support of the Shroud of Turin’s Authenticity

If the Shroud of Turin is the authentic burial cloth of Jesus Christ, we have the most important artifact in history, along with evidence of the highly gory and disturbing nature of Roman crucifixions. Perhaps this is why the Shroud of Turin is the most studied artifact in history and why so many scholars and lay people are very passionate about it, from atheists and agnostics to Jews and Christians. Everyone wants to know the truth, though some cannot handle it.  

The Shroud of Turin is a herringbone linen cloth that measures approximately 14 by 3 feet. It bears the image and blood (type AB) of a man who had been severely beaten, whipped, and crucified. His head had been poked with sharp objects, consistent with a helmet of thorns. His wrists and feet had been pierced with nails. Almost every part of his body had been battered well over a hundred times and his blood penetrated through the cloth, while the image of the man only appears on its top fibers.

In 1989, Nature published an article that declared that scientists had found “conclusive evidence” that the Shroud had been dated (via C14 carbon dating) to medieval times, so the Shroud was kicked to the curb by the public as a hoax. Since that time, numerous studies have identified serious limitations and problems with the ways the study had been carried out and its results analyzed and interpreted. Furthermore, determining that we have “conclusive evidence” based on a single method of dating and a single tiny corner sample of the Shroud is absurd. Anyone with a Ph.D. who’s taken even only one Ph.D.-level statistics course can tell you that – and I’ve taken six.  We have an abundance of evidence in addition to the C14 dating that we can use to determine its authenticity. I present much of this evidence, along with the arguments that some have used to reject the Shroud’s authenticity here. You be the judge!   

Arguments for the Authenticity of the Shroud

1. Vanillin

Ray Rogers was a chemist and one of the original 33 Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP) investigators who were permitted to analyze the Shroud in 1978 and to retain small samples. He analyzed the levels of vanillin in the Shroud. Vanillin is produced from lignin, which is a component of plant cell wall. Vanillin breaks down over time and the breakdown levels vary as a function of the temperature in which the vanillin was stored. By analyzing levels of vanillin, one can assess an approximate age of a material. Rogers analyzed vanillin from lignin in various Shroud samples, such as the Raes sample from 1973. Rogers also noted that the Raes/C14 corner was covered with a unique gum dye coating, which isn’t on the main portion of the Shroud.  

“If the shroud had been produced between A.D. 1260 and 1390, as indicated by the radiocarbon analyses, lignin should be easy to detect. A linen produced in A.D. 1260 would have retained about 37% of its vanillin in 1978. The Raes threads, the Holland cloth, and all other medieval linens gave the test for vanillin wherever lignin could be observed on growth nodes. The disappearance of all traces of vanillin from the lignin in the shroud indicates a much older age than the radiocarbon laboratories reported.”[1]

2. Pollen and Burial Ointments

Avinoam Danin was a botanist from Hebrew University. Danin analyzed pollen that was taken from the Shroud, finding the presence of a unique combination of flower species that were present in Jerusalem in April and May.[2] Another study by the late Alan and Mary Whanger entitled “Flora of the Shroud of Turin” further supported the presence of pollen local to Israel on the Shroud.[3] A third study by M. Boi found that some of the pollen found is associated with the oils used in embalming and anointing.[4] Other scholars have confirmed the presence of aromas and/or burial ointments on the Shroud.[5] See the image of the front and back of the image on the Shroud.[6]

“The Shroud is a burial cloth. The corpses enveloped in a burial cloth are sprinkled with aromatic substances with the aim to dehydrate and to delay their decomposition. In Middle East, in ancient times, aromatic oils and aromas such as aloe and myrrh were used. These were used in solution or in dust. Sometimes, the fabrics of the burial cloth were also wet with burial ointments. The position of the man, enveloped in the Shroud and placed in the tomb, was horizontal. So, the effects of the gravity force could have distributed the aromatic substances favoring, even if not uniformly, the back part with respect to the front part. Consequently, in the region of the linen where the dorsal Shroud image lies, there was a larger quantity of burial ointments with respect to the frontal one. In other words, we consider a body sprinkled with aromatic substances and enveloped in a burial linen. The anatomy and position of the man in the sepulchre correlate the cloth with (i) the frontal part of the body where there are burial ointments (on all area) and air in the zones of no contact and (ii) the dorsal part of the body with, substantially, only burial ointments in a large quantity with respect to the frontal one.”[7]

“Nicodemus also, who earlier had come to Jesus by night, came bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about seventy-five pounds in weight. So they took the body of Jesus and bound it in linen cloths with the spices, as is the burial custom of the Jews.” (John 19:39-40).

3. Sudarium of Oviedo

The Sudarium is a face cloth (or sweat cloth or towel, worn around the neck[8]) that many believe was on Jesus’ face during and after His crucifixion. The Sudarium is much smaller than the Shroud, measuring 33 x 21 inches.[9] The Sudarium is of lower quality than the Shroud, woven in an S-twist and in a coarser taffeta pattern.[10] Like the Shroud, the cloth contains much blood, which is colored red. The red color of the blood may surprise those who expect blood to darken with time, but the presence of significant bilirubin (due to the beatings He received) resulted in the retention of red-colored blood.[11] The blood type in both is also AB, the rarest blood type, which appears in only five percent of the population.[12]

“When the face of the Shroud image is overlaid with the Sudarium stains, there is a coincident fit with the beard on the face. Post-mortem blood is present on both cloths with a very similar morphology. Estimation of the length of the nose through which the pleural fluid was expelled onto the Sudarium is 8 cm, which also corresponds with the Shroud image. Polarized overlay studies between the Shroud and the Sudarium show 70 points of correlation on the front of the Sudarium and 50 on the back; the wounds found on the Sudarium located in the nape of the neck area coincide precisely with the bloodstains on the Shroud, which have been suggested to represent thorn wounds.”[13]

“Then Simon Peter came, following him, and went into the tomb. He saw the linen cloths lying there, and the face cloth, which had been on Jesus’ head, not lying with the linen cloths but folded up in a place by itself. Then the other disciple, who had reached the tomb first, also went in, and he saw and believed; for as yet they did not understand the Scripture, that he must rise from the dead.” (John 20:6-9)

“Early Christian sources state that St. Peter took custody of the sudarium, and it was kept in the Holy Land until the Persian and Muslim invasions. Records indicate that it was taken then to Alexandria, Egypt, and then to Cartagena and eventually to Toledo, Spain, where it was kept (636-711A.D.). Again due to the Muslim invasion of Spain, the sudarium was taken to the Cathedral of Oviedo, where it remains to this day….Some 141 pollen grains and 10 fungus spores were discovered on the sudarium; 99 percent were endemic to the Mediterranean region. Three plant species were identified that grow only in Palestine — the terebinth, tamarisk and the batha oak. Two other native plant residues found were that of the “Rocks Rose” (Cistus creticus) and Goundelia tournefortii, which may have been used for Jesus’ crown of thorns. All of these can be found within a radius of 20 km. of Jerusalem and blossom in the spring (around Passover time). These pollens also appear on the Shroud of Turin; however, there are pollens of Spain found on the sudarium which do not appear on the shroud (which is kept in Milan) and vice versa. Traces of myrrh and aloe were found.”[14]

4. DNA

One study has extracted DNA from dust particles vacuumed from the Shroud, finding evidence of several distinct human groups and numerous plant species from around the world who came into contact with the relic.[15] The authors discussed both possibilities of dating the Shroud to either the 1^st or 14^th centuries in the abstract. Yet in the body of the text, they called the 1988 radiocarbon study into question by noting that other studies have highlighted concerns and a medieval age is not consistent with the “production technology of the linen nor with the chemistry of fibers obtained directly from the main parts of the cloth in 1978.”[16] The authors traced historical accounts of the Shroud’s connections with Jerusalem, Israel (30-33), Edessa (or Sanliurfa), Turkey (200-944), Constantinople (or Istanbul), Turkey (944-1204), Athens, Greece, Lirey, France (1353-1357), Chambray, France (1502-1578), and Turin, Italy (1578 to the present). Results also suggest the linen may have originally been manufactured in India. It is not out of the question to suggest that a wealthy man like Joseph of Arimathea could have purchased imported linen.

Flax and hemp were used to make linen eight centuries before Christ in and around Israel.[17] The linen made back then varied in its density and coarseness and was woven together in either a (counterclockwise) S-twist or a (clockwise) Z-twist, as imaged below.[18] The Shroud’s linen is made of flax and its weave is a 3 over 1 herringbone twill.[19]

5. Negative Photo Shroud Image

Prior to 1898, the image on the Shroud appeared fuzzy and one could sort of see the image of a man. But in 1898, the first person took a photograph of the Shroud, an amateur photographer named Secondo Pia. When he developed the image, he was shocked to find that the reverse in the image was much more detailed.

His image further supports Isaiah 53:2 “For he grew up before him like a young plant, and like a root out of dry ground; he had no form or majesty that we should look at him, and no beauty that we should desire him.”

6. Human blood

Analysis of the figure on the Shroud using sticky tapes applied in a “limited area” has determined that it is 90 percent human blood with small touch-ups of a red inorganic material (9.5 percent red ochre/iron oxide and .5 percent vermillion/mercury sulfide), the latter of which can be easily washed off.[20]  

“The common opinion of the investigators that have performed detailed examination of the cloth in person is that the Shroud image is not the result of painting with any known pigments. A simple backlighting experiment also helps to demonstrate this. When the Shroud is illuminated from behind, only bloodstains, water stains, and scorch markings remain visible in transmitted light. The image itself disappears, which should not be the case if the image was simply painted on.”

“The chemical conclusions were drawn from all the data and observations, both physical and chemical, collected by direct investigation of the Shroud in 1978. The conclusions are that the body image is made up of yellowed surface fibrils of the linen that are at more advanced stages of degradation than the non-image linen. The chromophore is a conjugated carbonyl. No evidence was found in the body image of any added substances that could have contributed to the yellow color of the fibrils that form the image. The blood images on the cloth are made of blood. The data, taken together, do not support the hypothesis that the images on the Shroud are due to an artist.”[21]

“The majority of the researchers agree[22] that they were produced by human blood coming from the wounds put in contact with the TS, but someone[23] sustains that they were produced by a painter; also the hypothesis of other researchers such as John Tryer[24] must be taken into consideration ‘that the Shroud could very well have been retouched during its long career of public expositions. It has certainly been in artists’ studios during its history when it was being copied.’ This hypothesis appears the best for [multiple] reasons.”

The distribution of the yellowed fibrils is stochastic, which supports the hypothesis that the image is latent and not due to the intentionality of an artist.[25]

“Three events have produced the tracks present on the Linen of Turin: (i) the envelopment of a wounded human body, (ii) the formation of the latent image due to stochastic effects triggered by a small quantity of energy and (iii) the 1532 Chambery fire and its extinguishment.”[26]

7. Consistency with Ancient Images of Jesus

Notice that some of the earliest images of Jesus are consistent with the image in the Shroud. The first image above is from the 4^th century in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem. The second image from the 6^th or 7^th century one above entitled “Christ the Pantocrator” from St. Catherine’s Monastery in Sinai, Egypt. Pantocrator is from Greek words meaning all mighty. The third image is the Hungarian Pray Codex, which has been commonly dated to 1192-1195.[27] Note the way the hands in the third image are presented: very long fingers with the thumbs tucked back. When one’s wrist is crucified, the thumbs fold back under the hands. The hands on the Shroud also appear with long fingers with the thumbs folded back. Gary Habermas has noted that the image may include the hands as they would appear in an x-ray, so what appears as fingers would include the bones between the fingers and the wrists.

8. Three-Dimensional Image

Unlike all other photos we have today, the image in the Shroud of Turin is three-dimensional, which is confirmed by modern scientific methods of holography.[28]

“It is astounding to see a three-dimensional Man emerge from the two-dimensional image on the Shroud. But that is not what is most astounding. Rather, it is the fact that the Man is seen, in relation to the Shroud, as floating between the top and bottom sections. He is not resting on the stone slab of the tomb, and thus there is no distortion of the body’s image. The buttocks and back are free of distortion by gravity pulling the Man’s flesh into a somewhat flattened condition. The body appears to have been levitating at the moment the image was formed on the Shroud.”[29]

See the image below, which is a recreation by Giulio Fanti.[30]

9. Radiation and Light

“Shroud researcher Ray Rogers, a physical chemist at Los Alamos Laboratory, said, ‘I am forced to conclude that the image was formed by a burst of radiant energy — light if you like.’ In other words, the image is recorded on the cloth as if by a photoflash of brilliant light radiating from the body of the Man in the Shroud.”[31]

Scientists haven’t figured out how the image transferred from the man to the cloth. They have failed in any attempts to recreate it. But they do believe that a burst of high intensity energy and radiation occurred, which they estimated would be similar to the burst from the atomic bomb at Hiroshima, which “printed” images of victims on building walls.[32]

10. Limestone

According to Gary Habermas, who’s been studying the Shroud for years, researchers have identified the presence of dirt on the nose, knees, and feet of the person on the Shroud.[33] The dirt contained a type of limestone found only around Jerusalem.

11. Electromagnetic field in Jesus’ tomb at the Church of the Holy Sepulchre[34]

Many Christians believe that the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem contains the tomb of Jesus, yet it has been exceedingly rare for anyone to be able to visit the tomb as it has been sealed off long ago. In modern times, it has been witnessed once in 1809 and again by a team of scientists in 2016.[35] According to one scientist (and confirmed by Marie-Armelle Beaulieu of the French magazine Terre Sainte), the tomb had a “strong, unexplainable electromagnetic field that messed up their equipment.”[36]

Arguments against the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin

1. Carbon dating

On September 22, 1988, the New York Times dealt a death blow to Christians with the headline “Tests Show Shroud of Turin to Be Fraud, Scientist Hints.” The following February, Nature published research by Damon and colleagues, which declared they had “conclusive evidence” based on carbon dating that the Shroud of Turin was medieval and “not from the time of Christ.”[37] The authors dated the Shroud to between 1260 and 1390 with “at least 95 percent confidence.”

This argument fails on two fronts. First, recent studies have found the quality of the single tiny corner sample and the methodology used to estimate dating to be wanting. The Shroud of Turin was based on a tiny sample from the upper left-hand corner of a large 14 x 3 feet linen cloth. The sample, which three global labs in Tucson, Oxford, and Zurich cut up in varying ways,[38] exhibited “egregious heterogeneity.”[39] In other words, the sample should not have been used for carbon dating. Carbon dating should only be done on homogeneous samples.

See below for an image, courtesy of Riani and colleagues (2013). Why would a sample exhibit “egregious heterogeneity” if its threads were not consistent? In other words, this heterogeneity points to the possibility of interwoven threads of different types and from different times.

Moreover, the samples between the three labs were very different. They showed that the distance from the edge of the cloth made a difference in the radiocarbon dating estimate.[40] See below for evidence and an image, courtesy of Walsh and Schwalbe (2020).

Second, recent research has found that the single sample is notably different from the main portion of the Shroud. The 1989 study authors selected a sample from the upper left-hand corner of the Shroud, which had likely been sewn in at a later date due to either wear and tear or a fire.

Ray Rogers (aforementioned) read a research paper by Benford and Marino[41] that postulated that the portion sampled from the Shroud may have been sewn in by a master craftsman in medieval times, he decided to analyze a sample of the linen that had been saved, which had been located in the middle of the labs’ radiocarbon sample. He found that it contained cotton and had been dyed to match the color of the main interior Shroud linen, which was not made of cotton and was free from additional applications. Note that Benford and Marino were not the first to identify anomalies in the sample. Way back in 1988, the head of the Oxford lab, Edward Hall, noticed some rogue fibers in the sample. He solicited the help of Peter South of a Derbyshire lab who studied the sample[42] by magnifying it 200 times under a microscope.[43] South commented as follows:

“The cotton is a fine, dark yellow strand, possibly of Egyptian origin and quite old. Unfortunately, it is impossible to say how it ended up in the Shroud, which is basically made from linen…It may have been used for repairs at some time in the past or simply became bound in when the linen fabric was woven. It may not have taken us long to identify the strange material, but it was unique among the many and varied jobs we undertake.”[44]

This important little nugget was not mentioned in the 1989 Nature study.

In 2005, William Meacham stated: “The Shroud may not be one homogeneous cloth as far as its chemistry is concerned. We already know of significant variation from one point to another, and the radiocarbon content likewise may vary significantly.”[45]

“The dye found on the radiocarbon sample was not used in Europe before about A.D. 1291 and was not common until more than 100 years later. The combined evidence from chemical kinetics, analytical chemistry, cotton content, and pyrolysis proves that the material from the radiocarbon area of the shroud is significantly different from that of the main cloth. The radiocarbon sample was thus not part of the original cloth and is invalid for determining the age of the shroud. Because the storage conditions through the centuries are unknown, a more accurate age determination will require new radiocarbon analyses with several fully characterized and carefully prepared samples.”[46]

2. Early dismissal by the Catholic Church

Sometime before 1390, Bishop Pierre d’Arcis of Troyes sent a letter to Pope Clement VII that indicated that the dean of the collegiate church of Lirey and “deceitfully and purposely” was exhibiting a cloth with the double image of a man and claiming it to be the verifiable Shroud – for monetary gain.[47] Note this letter had been unsigned and undated and it’s uncertain whether Bishop d’Arcis even wrote the letter.[48] His predecessor, Bishop Henri de Poitiers had opened an investigation, which led to taking the advice of “experts” who believed the Shroud to be a fraud.[49] They claimed the Gospels said nothing of a Shroud (which is incorrect). The bishop then claimed that it was “proved through the craftsman who had painted it” precisely how the cloth had been “painted artificially.”[50] Recent studies have debunked this notion. In 1390, Pope Clement VII declared the expositions to see the Shroud in Lirey, France, could only take place if the Shroud were declared to be inauthentic.[51] The image on the Shroud was merely considered a “man of sorrows.”[52]

Alan Friedlander has pointed to another group of men whom he also calls men of sorrows: the Spiritual Franciscans.[53] In the Journal of Ecclesiastical History, he hypothesized that Spiritual Franciscans provided the link in the chain of custody for the Shroud between Lirey and Constantinople. “They, more than anyone else, had a powerful, intense, indeed a passionate motive for holding an object like the shroud; and the circumstances of their existence, suspected and at times fugitive, set them at a distance from the world and the common notice of the authorities.” This hypothesis helps to fill in some of the historical gaps we have of the Shroud.

Fast forward many centuries and we come to the position of the Catholic Church today, which is neither to deny nor support the authenticity of the Shroud. In 1998, Pope John Paul II visited the Shroud and affirmed the Catholic position of not declaring the Shroud of Turin to be a relic, but rather an icon. He stated, “Since it is not a matter of faith, the church has no specific competence to pronounce on these questions.”[54]

The Implausible Super Forger Hypothesis

“Against all Christian art tradition super forger created an image with a helmet of thorns as opposed to a circlet, nails through the wrists, and a myriad of scourge marks matching a Roman instrument unused for almost a thousand years. Super forger put serum rings around the blood stains using real blood. He added burn holes to match a 12th-century Hungarian manuscript. He added rare limestone from Jerusalem on the nose, knee, and heel. Super forger stitched a side strip onto the cloth with a sewing technique from the 1st century. He also added discolorations to the cloth representing a device used to display the shroud over a hundred years before in Constantinople as described by a chronicler of the 4th crusade just before the sack of Constantinople. Super forger is just super.”[55]

Conclusion

To this date, no one has been able to duplicate the image on the Shroud of Turin, despite very significant interest in and research on this Christian relic. This article presented eleven arguments for the authenticity of the Shroud as the burial cloth of Jesus Christ and two arguments against its authenticity. All things considered, the weight of evidence in support of its authenticity dwarfs the evidence against. Let’s give the man whose image is on the Shroud of Turin credit for what He did for our sins and for our salvation: He was crucified, died, and was buried and on the 3rd day He rose in fulfillment of the Scriptures. He is risen. He is Jesus Christ.

Can you handle the truth? “And then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” – Jesus

---

[1] Rogers, R.N. (2005). Studies on the radiocarbon sample from the Shroud of Turin. Thermochimica Acta 425, 189–194.

[2] Anonymous. (1999). Briefs. The Science Teacher, 66(7), 10, 12, 15, 17-19.

[3] Whanger, A.D. and Whanger, M. (1999). Flora of the Shroud of Turin. Missouri Botanical Garden Press.

[4] Boi, M. (2017). Pollen on the Shroud of Turin: The probable trace left by anointing and embalming. Archaeometry, 2, 316-330.

[5] Curciarello, F., De Leo, V., Fazio, G., Mandaglio, G. (2012). The abrupt changes in the yellow fibril density in the Linen of Turin. Radiation Effects and Defects in Solids. Incorporating Plasma Techniques & Plasma Phenomena, 167(3), 224-228.

[6] Curciarello, F., De Leo, V., Fazio, G., Mandaglio, G. (2012). The abrupt changes in the yellow fibril density in the Linen of Turin. Radiation Effects and Defects in Solids. Incorporating Plasma Techniques & Plasma Phenomena, 167(3), 224-228.

[7] Curciarello, F., De Leo, V., Fazio, G., Mandaglio, G. (2012). The abrupt changes in the yellow fibril density in the Linen of Turin. Radiation Effects and Defects in Solids. Incorporating Plasma Techniques & Plasma Phenomena, 167(3), 224-228

[8] Wild, J.P. (2002). The textile industries of Roman Britain. Britannia, 33, 1-42.

[9] Kearse, K.P. (2013). Icons, science, and faith: Comparative examination of the Shroud of Turin and the Sudarium of Oviedo. Theology and Science, 11(1), 52-61.

[10] Kearse, K.P. (2013). Icons, science, and faith: Comparative examination of the Shroud of Turin and the Sudarium of Oviedo. Theology and Science, 11(1), 52-61.

[11] Schwortz, B. (2013). The Shroud and the Jew: Barrie Schwortz at TEDx ViadellaConciliazione. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4G4sj8hUVaY

[12] Kearse, K.P. (2013). Icons, science, and faith: Comparative examination of the Shroud of Turin and the Sudarium of Oviedo. Theology and Science, 11(1), 52-61.

[13] Kearse, K.P. (2013). Icons, science, and faith: Comparative examination of the Shroud of Turin and the Sudarium of Oviedo. Theology and Science, 11(1), 52-61.

[14] Anonymous. (2022). What is the Sudarium of Oviedo? Catholic Straight Answers. https://catholicstraightanswers.com/the-sudarium-of-oviedo/

[15] Barcaccia, G., Galla, G., Achilli, A., Olivieri, A. and Torroni, A. (2015). Uncovering the sources of DNA found on the Shroud of Turin. Nature. Scientific reports. | DOI: 10.1038/srep14484

[16] Barcaccia, G., Galla, G., Achilli, A., Olivieri, A. and Torroni, A. (2015). Uncovering the sources of DNA found on the Shroud of Turin. Nature. Scientific reports. | DOI: 10.1038/srep14484, p. 1. Studies that have supported this statement include these citations, which I was unable to fully access: Jumper, E. J. Adler, L.D., Jackson, J.P. Pellicori, S.F., Heller, J.H., and Druzik, J.R. (1984). A comprehensive examination of the various stains and images on the Shroud of Turin, Archaeological Chemistry III, 22, 447–476; Schwalbe, L. A. and Rogers, R. N. (1982) Physics and chemistry of the Shroud of Turin, a summary of the 1978 investigation. Analytica Chimica Acta, 135, 3–49.

[17] Sheffer, A. and Tidhar, A. (1991). Textiles and basketry at Kuntillad ‘Ajrud. Atigot, 20, 1-26.

[18] Sheffer, A. and Tidhar, A. (1991). Textiles and basketry at Kuntillad ‘Ajrud. Atigot, 20, 1-26

[19] Mader, C. and Campbell, E. (n.d.). The weave of the Shroud of Turin. https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/stlmader2.pdf

[20] Fanti, G. and Zagotto (2017). Blood reinforced by pigments in the reddish stains of the Turin Shroud. Journal of Cultural Heritage, 25, 113-120.

[21] Jumper, E. J. Adler, L.D., Jackson, J.P. Pellicori, S.F., Heller, J.H., and Druzik, J.R. (1984). A comprehensive examination of the various stains and images on the Shroud of Turin, Archaeological Chemistry III, 22, 447–476.

[22] Fanti, G. and Zagotto (2017). Blood reinforced by pigments in the reddish stains of the Turin Shroud. Journal of Cultural Heritage, 25, 113-120: Baima Bollone, P.L., Jorio, M., Massaro, A.L. (1981). La dimostrazione della presenza ditracce di sangue umano sulla Sindone, Sindon Quaderno 30, 5–8; Baima Bollone, P.L., (1982), Indagini identificative su fili della Sindone, Giornale della Accademia di Medicina di Torino 1–12, 228–239. Adler, A.D. (2014) The Orphaned Manuscript: A Gathering of Publications on the Shroud of Turin, Effata Ed, 21; Heller, J.H., Adler, A.D. (1980).  Blood on the Shroud of Turin, Applied Optics, 19 (16), 2742–2744.[22] Heller, J.H., Adler, A.D., (1981) A Chemical Investigation of the Shroud of Turin, Canadian Society of Forensic Science Journal, 14 (3), 81–103.

[23] W.C. McCrone, W.C. (2000). The Shroud Image, Microscope 48 (2) 79–85.

[24] Fanti, G. and Zagotto (2017). Blood reinforced by pigments in the reddish stains of the Turin Shroud. Journal of Cultural Heritage, 25, 113-120 Tryer, J. (1981). Looking at the Turin Shroud as a Textile, Textile Horizon, 20–23, http://www.sindone.info/TYRER1.PDF.

[25] Curciarello, F., De Leo, V., Fazio, G., Mandaglio, G. (2012). The abrupt changes in the yellow fibril density in the Linen of Turin. Radiation Effects and Defects in Solids. Incorporating Plasma Techniques & Plasma Phenomena, 167(3), 224-228; ); Fazio, G. and Mandaglio, G. (2011). Radiation Effects and Defects in Solids, 165, 476–479.

[26] Curciarello, F., De Leo, V., Fazio, G., Mandaglio, G. (2012). The abrupt changes in the yellow fibril density in the Linen of Turin. Radiation Effects and Defects in Solids. Incorporating Plasma Techniques & Plasma Phenomena, 167(3), 224-228, p. 224.

[27] Casabianca, T. (2021). The ongoing historical debate about the Shroud of Turin: The case of the Pray Codex. The Heythrop Journal, 789-802

[28] White, J. (2010). Is the Shroud of Turin authentic? The New American. May 10.

[29] White, J. (2010). Is the Shroud of Turin authentic? The New American. May 10.

[30] Gill, J. (2018). Professor used Shroud of Turin to create precise 3D carbon copy of Jesus. https://dailycaller.com/2018/03/28/university-of-padua-shroud-of-turin-jesus-christ/

[31] Tribbe, F.C. (2006). Portrait of Jesus? The Shroud of Turin in Science and History. Second Edition. Omega Books.

[32] White, J. (2010). Is the Shroud of Turin authentic? The New American. May 10.

[33] Schneider, R.J. (n.d.). Dating of the Shroud of Turin: Weighing all the evidence. https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/stlschneiderpaper.pdf

[34] I was made aware of this finding by Joe Marino: Marino, J.G. (2020). The 1988 Dating of the Shroud of Turin: A Stunning Expose. USA,

[35] Editor. (2016). Astounding: Mysterious electromagnetic field discovered at the tomb of Christ. Churchpop. https://www.churchpop.com/2016/12/05/astounding-mysterious-magnetic-readings-at-recently-opened-tomb-of-christ/

[36] Editor. (2016). Astounding: Mysterious electromagnetic field discovered at the tomb of Christ. Churchpop. https://www.churchpop.com/2016/12/05/astounding-mysterious-magnetic-readings-at-recently-opened-tomb-of-christ/

[37] Damon, P.E. and Donahue, D.J, Gore, B.H., Hatheway, A.L.,  Jull, A.J.T., Linick, T.W., Sercel, P.J., Toolin, L.J., Bronk, C.R., Hall, E.T., Hedges, R.E.M., Housley, R., Law, L.A., Perry, C., Bonani, G., Trumbore , S.,Woelfli, W.,  Ambers, J.C.,  Bowman, S.G.E., Leese M.N., and Tite, M.S. (1989). Radiocarbon dating the Shroud of Turin. Nature, 337, 611-615.

[38] Riani, M., Atkinson, A.C., Fanti, G., and Crosilla, F. (2013). Regression analysis with partially labelled regressors: Carbon dating of the Shroud of Turin. Statistical Computing, 23, 551-561.

[39] Ibid, p. 553.

[40] Walsh, B. and Schwalbe, L. (2020). An instructive inter-laboratory comparison: The 1988 radiocarbon dating of the Shroud of Turin. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports, 29.

[41] Benford, M.S. and Marino, J.G. (2002). Historical support for a 16^th century restoration in the Shroud C-14 sample area.

[42] Marino, J.G. (2020). The 1988 Dating of the Shroud of Turin: A Stunning Expose. USA, pp. 426.

[43] Anonymous. (n.d.) Rogue fibers found in the Shroud. World News Network. http://www.sindone.info/TEXTILE.PDF

[44] Anonymous. (n.d.) Rogue fibers found in the Shroud. World News Network. http://www.sindone.info/TEXTILE.PDF

[45] Meacham, W. (2005). The Rape of the Turin Shroud: How Christianity’s Most Precious Relic Was Wrongly Condemned and Violated. Lulu.com. In Marino, J.G. (2020). The 1988 Dating of the Shroud of Turin: A Stunning Expose. USA.

[46] Rogers, R.N. (2005). Studies on the radiocarbon sample from the Shroud of Turin. Thermochimica Acta 425, 189–194.

[47] Friedlander, A. (2006). On the provenance of the Holy Shroud of Lirey/Turin: A minor suggestion. Journal of Ecclesiastical History, 57(3), 457-469.

[48] Marino, J.G. (2020). The 1988 Dating of the Shroud of Turin: A Stunning Expose. USA.

[49] Friedlander, A. (2006). On the provenance of the Holy Shroud of Lirey/Turin: A minor suggestion. Journal of Ecclesiastical History, 57(3), 457-469.

[50] Friedlander, A. (2006). On the provenance of the Holy Shroud of Lirey/Turin: A minor suggestion. Journal of Ecclesiastical History, 57(3), 457-469, p. 462.

[51] Freeman, C. (2015). The real mystery of the Shroud of Turin: Why does the Catholic Church not publicly declare that it is not authentic. Journal of Information Ethics, 24(2), 63-75.

[52] Friedlander, A. (2006). On the provenance of the Holy Shroud of Lirey/Turin: A minor suggestion. Journal of Ecclesiastical History, 57(3), 457-469, p. 462.

[53] Friedlander, A. (2006). On the provenance of the Holy Shroud of Lirey/Turin: A minor suggestion. Journal of Ecclesiastical History, 57(3), 457-469, p. 462.

[54] Rocca, F.X. (2015). Icons: An Ancient Shroud and an Eternal Debate. Wall Street Journal, April 18.

[55] Schneider, R.J. (n.d.). Dating of the Shroud of Turin: Weighing all the evidence. https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/stlschneiderpaper.pdf