The Holy Shroud, among science, history and mystery

Since its it first appeared in history, the Holy Shroud has aroused emotions, feelings, conflicting opinions and beliefs, and still represents one of humanity’s greatest unsolved mysteries. On that fragile linen cloth, kept in Turin for centuries, the image of a tortured body appears, that Christian tradition attributes to Jesus Christ. The enigmatic figure has a value far beyond the material on which it is imprinted. The relic is, in fact, a sign of faith for millions of people around the world. But what is the Holy Shroud really? Is it the true burial cloth of Christ or a medieval forgery? After decades of studies and controversies about its authenticity, the Shroud continues to elude any certainty, suspended between science, history and mystery.

The appearance of the Holy Shroud

Around the middle of the 14th century, in Lirey, a small town in Champagne, the Holy Shroud was exposed for the first time to the incredulous gaze of the faithful. The local canons displayed a large linen cloth, measuring 4.42 metres long and about 1.13 metres wide¹, donated to them by the lord and knight Geoffroy de Charny, who had founded the Collegiate Church in 1353². On the sturdy but very thin fabric, just 0.38 millimetres thick on average, the figure of a man was barely visible. The indistinct stain seemed as if it could disappear at any moment.

Yet, on the image, front and back, one could recognise the features of the face with a beard, long hair and half-closed eyes. The man on the Shroud, life-size, had his legs slightly bent and his arms crossed at the waist. Above all, he showed the signs of a real crucifixion: wounds on his wrists and feet; trickles of blood on his head, which seemed to have been caused by a crown of thorns; a wound on his side; bruises on his chest and shoulders, as if he had dragged a heavy cross… Well, for the canons of Lirey, that cloth was the shroud that had wrapped Christ’s body in the tomb.

“Then Pilate took Jesus and had him scourged.  And the soldiers wove a crown out of thorns and placed it on his head […]. So they took Jesus; and carrying the cross himself, he went out to what is called The Place of the Skull, in Hebrew, Golgotha […]. But when they came to Jesus and saw that he was already dead, they did not break his legs, but one soldier thrust his lance into his side, and immediately blood and water flowed out […]. They took the body of Jesus and bound it with burial cloths along with the spices, according to the Jewish burial custom”.

Gospel of John 19:1-2; 19:17; 19:33-34; 19:40.

The letter of Pierre d’Arcis

It is unclear how the Shroud came to Lirey or where it suddenly and shockingly appeared in history. All we know comes from a few documents dating back a few decades later, when its authenticity was already being debated. At the end of 1389, the Bishop of Troyes, Pierre d’Arcis, wrote a letter to Antipope Clement VII, who was recognised as pope by the French clergy at the time³, asking him to intervene because the canons of Lirey were deceiving the faithful. Pierre d’Arcis explained that “the Dean of a certain collegiate church […] procured for his church a certain cloth cunningly painted” and, passing it off as “shroud in which our Saviour Jesus Christ was enfolded in the tomb, and upon which the whole likeness of the Saviour had remained thus impressed”, he exposed it to “attract the multitude so that money might cunningly be wrung from them”⁴.

Pierre d’Arcis reported that the exhibition of the shroud in Lirey had begun about 34 years earlier, around 1355. After a thorough investigation, his predecessor, Henry of Poitiers, had concluded that the cloth “could not be the real shroud of our Lord having the Saviour’s likeness thus imprinted upon it, since the holy Gospel made no mention of any such imprint”⁵. Moreover, the bishop also seems to have obtained a confession from the craftsman who had painted the cloth and had therefore forbidden its public display.

The debate on the authenticity of the Holy Shroud

However, while Pierre d’Arcis was writing his letter, the Shroud was once again on display in Lirey and the canons refused to obey him. At that point, he turned to King Charles IV of France, who on 4 August 1389 sent a bailiff to the French town to seize the relic, but without success⁶. The dispute was then referred to Clement VII for judgement. He issued a bull on 6 January 1390⁷, surprisingly allowing the canons to expose the Shroud, on condition that it was expressly declared a “pictura seu tabula“, a painting or picture, and not the true shroud of Christ.

So, do the earliest historical sources prove that the Shroud is a medieval forgery? Obviously, the issue is more complex. It is part of an ongoing debate between “sindonologists” who support the authenticity of the relic and sceptics. The first historian to seriously question the nature and origin of the Shroud, considering it an artefact, was the Catholic priest Ulysse Chevalier (1841-1923), who published 14th-century sources, including the bull of Clement VII⁸.

However, the long series of documents he produced failed to completely convince his opponents. And this is still the case today. For some sindonologists, Pierre d’Arcis’ testimony is unreliable, as the bishop had every interest in having the Shroud removed. In those years, in fact, he was building the great Gothic cathedral of Troyes and needed large sums of money. However, the money collected from pilgrims, attracted by the relic, went to the Collegiate Church of Lirey. Furthermore, in a copy of Clement VII’s bull, drawn up in February 1390 and deposited in the Vatican Regesto, the words “pictura seu tabula” were mysteriously replaced with “figura seu rapresentacio“, “figure or representation”.

The votive medallions of Lirey

In any case, the chronological references of the story are confirmed by a lead medallion found in the Seine in 1855, now preserved at the Cluny Museum in Paris, and another discovered in Machy in 2009. Both plaques bear bas-reliefs of the coats of arms of Geoffroy de Charny and his wife, Jeanne de Vergy. In addition, two clergymen hold a cloth bearing the unmistakable image of the Shroud. These are the oldest depictions of the relic, belonging to pilgrims who travelled to Lirey around 1356. That was the year Geoffroy died fighting in the Battle of Poitiers during the Hundred Years’ War.

The donation of the Holy Shroud to the House of Savoy

From the end of the 14th century, however, we have well-documented evidence of the history of the Shroud. In 1418, due to the Hundred Years’ War raging in Champagne, the canons of Lirey decided to temporarily entrust the relic to Countess Marguerite de Charny, Geoffroy’s last descendant, and her husband Humbert de La Roche, so that they could keep it in a safe place. Humbert issued a special receipt to the Collegiate Church, dated 6 July 1418, and hid the Shroud in the castle of Montfort⁹.

When the deadline expired, Marguerite, now a widow, refused to return the cloth to Lirey, citing security reasons. In 1453, defying papal excommunication, the countess entrusted the Shroud to Anne de Lusignan, wife of Louis, Duke of Savoy. Louis then displayed it in his capital, Chambéry. The nobleman replied to yet another request for its return by the canons with a letter dated 6 February 1464. He offered a monetary contribution of 50 francs per year in exchange¹⁰. In 1506, Pope Julius II approved a liturgy and an office, formally establishing the public veneration of the Shroud.

The Chambery fire

Only twenty-eight years later, a fire threatened to destroy the Holy Shroud forever. The flames broke out on the morning of 4 December 1532 inside the Sainte-Chapelle of the castle of Chambéry. Fortunately, the cloth survived, but a series of symmetrical burns marked it along its entire length. These were partly caused by molten silver from the reliquary that contained it. Two years later, the local Poor Clare nuns patched the burnt parts with fabric from the period. In addition, they placed the relic on a more resistant cloth support.

It is also possible that the Shroud had already come into contact with fire previously, perhaps due to candles placed in its immediate vicinity. A copy from 1516, preserved in the church of St. Gummarus in Lier, Belgium, already depicts some circular burn marks around the hands.

The transfer of the Holy Shroud to Turin

On 19 September 1578, Duke Emanuele Filiberto of Savoy brought the Shroud to Turin. The transfer served to shorten the pilgrimage of Archbishop Carlo Borromeo. He had vowed to venerate the relic if Milan were freed from the plague. The Shroud was initially placed in the church of San Lorenzo, then moved to the Cathedral of Saint John the Baptist. Finally, in 1694, the Archbishop of Turin placed the Shroud in a special chapel built by Guarino Guarini. In the same year, Sebastiano Valfrè made a new patch to mend some tears in the fabric.

In 1983, after Umberto II of Savoy’s death, the Shroud passed to the Holy See, according to his will. However, Pope John Paul II decided that the relic should remain in Turin, where it is still located today. Five years later, a fragment of the Shroud was analyzed scientifically for the first time, including radiocarbon-14 dating. In 1997, a fire broke out in Guarini’s chapel while it was undergoing restoration. Providentially, the restorers had already moved the Shroud inside the Cathedral. In 2002, the Shroud underwent conservative restoration to remove the patches sewn on by the nuns of Chambery in 1534.

The historical hypothesis on the authenticity of the Holy Shroud

Historians who support the authenticity of the Shroud face a great mystery. If the relic is truly Christ’s burial cloth, where was it before the 14th century, when it appeared in Lirey? Above all, why does no historical source mention it? For these sindonologists, the most likely explanation is etymological in nature. The sacred cloth, in fact, would have been called “sindon” – from the Greek, meaning sheet – only in the late Middle Ages, whereas before that it was known by another name. Furthermore, there would be some evidence of the relic’s existence since the early centuries after Christ. For example, supporters of its authenticity claim the Shroud’s face influenced the depiction of Christ in early Christian iconography.

In the early centuries, the typical representation of the Saviour was that of the Good Shepherd, adolescent and beardless. This is seen, for example, in the Mausoleum of Galla Placidia in Ravenna. However, during Theodosius’ reign (379–395), the adult, bearded image of Christ became established, remaining central in art history to today.

The Shroud and the Veil of Veronica

If the Shroud already existed before the 14th century under another name, then it should be possible to identify a relic in historical sources that corresponds to it in terms of representation, size and features, and above all, one that has now disappeared. Supporters of its authenticity have proposed several icons as possible candidates. The Veil of Veronica, the cloth that, according to tradition, was used to wipe the bleeding face of Christ on Calvary, was venerated in Rome during the Middle Ages¹². However, the icon remained in that city after 1355 and was lost sometime between the 16th and 17th centuries¹³. Some scholars also believe that the Veil of Veronica actually corresponds to the Holy Face image, a cloth brought to Manoppello by an anonymous pilgrim in 1506¹⁴.

The Mandylion of Edessa

Another famous image of Christ, believed to be acheiropoietic and a candidate for the Shroud before its “discovery” in Lirey, is the Mandylion of Edessa. The miraculous origins of the icon are recounted in the Acts of Thaddeus, an apocryphal text from the 6th-7th century¹⁶. According to the story, Abgar, who was the king of Edessa from 13 to 50 AD, sent a painter to Palestine to create a portrait of Jesus Christ in the hope that it would cure his illness. However, the artist failed, so Jesus, taking pity, imprinted his face on a cloth and gave it to him. The legend echoes what Eusebius of Caesarea (263–339 AD) wrote several centuries earlier in his Ecclesiastical History¹⁷. In it, he recounted that Christ himself sent a letter to Abgar to guarantee his healing.

Certainly, the Mandylion was already in Edessa in 544, as reported by Evagrius Scholasticus. He attributes to it the miracle of repelling a siege by the Sassanids led by King Khosrow I: “In this state of utter perplexity, they bring the divinely wrought image, which the hands of men did not form, but Christ our God sent to Abgarus”¹⁸. The relic is also mentioned in the acts of the Council of Nicaea in 787, where the legitimacy of venerating icons was discussed¹⁹, and in some writings by John of Damascus against iconoclasm²⁰. In 944, with Edessa in Muslim hands, the Byzantine general John Curcuas took the Mandylion and brought it to Constantinople. But here, it was lost during the siege of the city by Crusader troops in 1204.

Was the Mandylion of Edessa the Holy Shroud?

Paintings from centuries past show a cloth with a bearded face imprinted on it. But if the icon depicted only Christ’s face, how could it correspond to the full-length figure on the Shroud? Supporters of this theory claim the Shroud was folded in a reliquary, leaving only the face visible.

According to British essayist Ian Wilson, it is still possible to see some of the folds in the fabric in X-ray photographs²¹. The scholar then points out some historical clues. Regarding the Mandylion, the Acts of Thaddeus describe a cloth folded four times (“ῥάκος τετράδιπλον“). Furthermore, Archdeacon Gregory Referendarius, who saw it when he arrived in Constantinople from Edessa, described it as “imprinted only by the sweat from the face of the originator of life, falling like drops of blood, and by the finger of God”, and above all “embellished by drops from his own side”. Therefore, according to Ian Wilson, Gregory was referring to the image of a whole body²².

Robert de Clari’s account and the hypothesis about the Templars

A chronicler of the events of the Fourth Crusade, the knight Robert de Clari, left an account of the treasures that were in the Byzantine capital before the Crusaders sacked it on 12 April 1204. Among these is a relic remarkably similar to the Shroud:

“There was a church which was called of My Lady Saint Mary of Blachernae, where there was the Shroud in which our Lord had been wrapped, which every Friday was raised upright so one could see the figure of our Lord on it. No one, either Greek or French, ever knew what became of the Shroud after the capture of the City”.

Robert de Clari, La conquête de Constantinople, edited by J. Dufournet, Parigi, 2004.

It is unclear whether the relic described by Robert de Clari was indeed the Mandylion, and not all scholars agree²³. In any case, the historical reconstruction of those who support its authenticity is missing a fundamental piece. Indeed, how did the Shroud-Mandylion get from Constantinople to Lirey? According to Ian Wilson, some Knights Templar took the sacred cloth and kept it until the dissolution of their order in 1314²⁴. Trial records show that the Templars were charged with venerating a bearded idol named Baphomet. Could this be the image of the Shroud? Finally, as some sindonologists note, in March 1314 the Preceptor of Normandy, Geoffrey de Charny, was burned at the stake alongside the last Grand Master, Jacques de Molay. The knight who donated the Shroud to Lirey bore the same name and was possibly a distant relative.

The Pray Codex of Budapest

Scholars supporting its authenticity note that the Széchényi National Library in Budapest holds evidence of the Shroud’s existence prior to its appearance in Lirey²⁵. In a manuscript dating back to 1192-1195, known as the Pray Codex, the copist depicts Christ’s burial on folio 27v. In the scene, the body’s posture mirrors the Shroud man, with arms crossed over the pubic region and hidden thumbs. Joseph of Arimathea is pouring funeral ointments, flanked by Nicodemus and John the Evangelist. A sheet seems laid on the tomb slab, held by the two figures, or perhaps just a stylised marble surface. In the lower register, a folded cloth lies on the empty tomb: Christ has risen²⁶. Yet there are no imprints on it. Had the author of the Pray Codex really seen the Shroud?

Scientific analyses of the Shroud of Turin

Since the late nineteenth century, the question of the Shroud’s authenticity has increasingly been addressed in a multidisciplinary manner. Historical research into documentary sources was soon accompanied by numerous scientific studies. These ranged from the renowned radiocarbon dating analysis to medical-legal tests and examinations for blood traces, as well as detailed studies of the fabric and other organic components. The scientific community has discussed each investigation at length. It has often become the subject of further disputes between “authenticist” sindonologists and sceptics.

A three-dimensional negative image

The first major scientific revelation about the Shroud came about in a completely unexpected way. During the celebrations for the 400th anniversary of Turin Cathedral on 28 May 1898, the sacred cloth was displayed to the faithful. On that occasion, lawyer Secondo Pia obtained permission to photograph it. When he went to the darkroom to develop the plates, he noticed an extraordinary phenomenon: the Shroud behaved like a photographic negative. The light areas of the cloth corresponded to the parts of the body closest to the observer. The photographs clearly showed the face of a man, with realistic features of half-closed eyes, nose, beard and mouth.

The discovery inevitably caused a great stir and paved the way for all subsequent scientific investigations. In 1978, STURP (Shroud of Turin Research Project), an international group of experts, subjected the photos of the Shroud to a VP-8 analyser, an instrument capable of detecting a depth gradient. Researchers discovered that the intensity of the image varied depending on the distance from the cloth, resulting in a perfect three-dimensional relief, a feature unique in the world.

Forensic medical examinations

Pierluigi Baima Bollone, a pathologist at the University of Turin, was among the greatest defenders of the Shroud’s authenticity. He claimed the image shows a man just taken down from the cross²⁷. On the sacred cloth, the scholar noted a slight bend in the head and knees, plus stiffness of the neck and facial muscles. He interpreted these features as signs of rigor mortis. Some scientists do not accept this theory. They argue that the image on the Shroud is not compatible with that of a dead body.

For the sceptic Luigi Garlaschelli, professor of chemistry at the University of Pavia and member of CICAP (Italian Committee for the Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal), the forearms, crossed over the pubic area, would tend to retract higher, to the level of the stomach, in a state of true death²⁸. He also noted that the wounds from the alleged flagellation are too symmetrical and regular. Furthermore, the blood from the crown of thorns should flow downward along the hair due to gravity. This phenomenon does not occur in the Shroud. In 2018, Garlaschelli, together with Matteo Borrini of the University of Liverpool, reproduced the pattern of bloodstains. They concluded that the stains are not compatible with the position of a real body, either standing or lying down²⁹.

Bernardo Hontanilla Calatayud, plastic surgeon and professor at the University of Navarra, also believes that the Shroud does not correspond to the image of a dead person³⁰. However, the scholar proposes an intriguing conclusion. The posture of the body and some facial folds would be signs of life, or rather, of resurrection. According to the scholar, “a remarkable symmetry is found between the data obtained from the image and the events described in the Gospels”.

The wounds of the nails

Another controversial aspect of the Shroud concerns the position of the wounds caused by the crucifixion. In Christian tradition, especially since the Middle Ages, Christ is almost always depicted on the cross with nails driven through the palms of his hands. However, from an anatomical point of view, this would not be possible. The soft tissues would tear and could not support the body’s weight. To maintain this position, the nails would have to be inserted into the wrist, in Destot’s space, between the radius and the carpal bones.

French physician Pierre Barbet demonstrated that this procedure caused damage to the median nerve in the condemned man’s hand. As a result, the thumb bent towards the palm³¹. In the man depicted on the Shroud, as the scholar observed, the thumbs are not visible. Thus, if the Shroud is a medieval forgery, its creator would have needed precise knowledge of 1st-century Roman crucifixion practices.

The face of the Shroud

On the other hand, if the Shroud is authentic and really did wrap the body of a man in the tomb, there is an inconsistency in the imprint of the face. In funeral masks, such as that of Agamemnon, the face appears deformed and enlarged. This happens because the material for the cast must be laid on the curved surface of the skull. The same effect should be visible on a two-dimensional cloth. Yet the face on the Shroud appears to be in proportion, as if only the front is being shown.

Garlaschelli therefore hypothesized that someone obtained the image by applying a red ochre-based pigment to the linen cloth laid over a bas-relief, suggesting an artificial process. Authenticists object that intense radiation emitted at the moment of the resurrection, rather than contact, may have produced the image.

The search for traces of blood

The formation of the image on the Holy Shroud remains a mystery. There are two types of stains on the cloth: some darker marks resemble dried blood, while most of the image consists of a light halo, possibly formed by a chemical reaction caused by the oxidation of the fabric. Over the decades, scholars have conducted numerous analyses to verify the presence of blood traces on the Shroud, a fundamental element for its authenticity, but the results have often been uncertain.

The first investigations, conducted on two strands of fabric in 1973, did not reveal the presence of red blood cells or other corpuscular elements, either through microscopy (G. Filogamo and A. Zina)³² or through chemical, haematological or chromatography tests (G. Frache, E. Mari Rizzati, E. Mari)³³. On the other hand, the scientists reported that they had identified residues of colouring substances.

The STURP investigations

In 1978, STURP obtained permission to take samples from the Shroud and analyse them. However, the results were inconclusive. Consultant Walter McCrone stated that he had detected iron oxide using polarised light microscopy. The scholar interpreted it as a product of the degradation of red ochre. Therefore, in his opinion, the relic is a painting³⁴.

Nevertheless, STURP disagreed with this statement and reported that adhesive tape used for transport had contaminated the analysed samples. It therefore had the test repeated by chemists John Heller and Alan David Adler.
Using proteolytic enzymes, they reported identifying residues of haemoglobin, albumin, and bilirubin³⁵. According to the two scholars, the degradation of haemoglobin produced the traces of iron oxide on the fabric. Furthermore, the presence of dyes, such as cinnabar, was due to environmental contamination. Sceptics’ main criticism of Heller and Adler’s study concerns the blood test’s lack of specificity in their analysis³⁶.

Baima Bollone, Maria Jorio, and Anna Lucia Massaro detected iron on the Shroud using an immunological test. They attributed it to human blood type AB³⁷. Again, the main objection concerned the test’s specificity, although Bollone maintained it detected a specific form of haemoglobin, acid methaemoglobin.

Analyses of the fabric of the Holy Shroud

Some technical and scientific studies on the Shroud focused on its textile material and the type of weaving used. Researchers aimed to determine whether it matches a 1st-century Palestinian cloth or dates back to medieval times. The Shroud fabric has a rudimentary herringbone twill weave, with a warp-to-weft ratio of 3:1 and Z-twist yarn. Archaeologists have found only one cloth from the time of Christ and the funerary context in Jerusalem: the Akeldama Shroud. However, the fabric of this sheet has many differences compared to the Shroud of Turin. It is woven from wool, has a simple and much coarser weave, with a 1:1 weave ratio and an S-twist weft³⁸.

On the contrary, the similarities with late medieval cloths are much more striking. In particular, two pieces of linen from the second half of the 14th century kept at the Victoria and Albert Museum in London (inventory numbers 7027-1860 and 8615-1863) have a weave very similar to that of the Shroud, a herringbone weave with a 3:1 weave ratio, although the thread density per centimetre is different³⁹.

Radiocarbon-14 dating

After a long wait, in 1988 the Holy See authorised the removal of three strips of fabric from the Shroud, measuring approximately 10 mm x 70 mm, in order to carry out radiocarbon-14 dating, a scientific method capable of estimating the age of organic finds. Microanalyst Giovanni Riggi and Franco Testore, professor of textile technology at the Polytechnic University of Turin, performed the operation. The strips, taken from a corner of the cloth, were then divided between the radiocarbon dating laboratories of Oxford (United Kingdom), the University of Arizona in Tucson (United States of America) and the Zurich Polytechnic (Switzerland), which conducted independent analyses. The samples were then subjected to mass spectrometry and compared with control samples attributable to a Nubian burial from 1100 AD, the cloak of Saint Louis of Anjou (13th-14th century) and an Egyptian mummy from the 2nd century AD.

Cardinal Ballestrero made the results of the examination public in October 1988. The three fragments analysed were dated between 1260 and 1390, with a 95% statistical confidence interval⁴⁰. All the laboratories came to the same conclusion, namely that the Shroud is of medieval origin.

Criticism of carbon-14 testing

Nevertheless, not all scholars have accepted this estimate. Sindonologists who support its authenticity believe that the samples were taken from a part of the cloth contaminated by smoke from the fire in Chambery and subsequent patches made by nuns. According to Garza Valdés, a microbiology researcher at the University of San Antonio, Texas, the dating was altered by the presence of a patina created by fungi and bacteria on the fabric⁴¹. Even nuclear physicist Timothy Jull of Tucson subsequently conducted microphotography and optical microscopy analyses on one of the samples. His examination, however, ruled out the presence of significant contamination or biological coatings, except for a few cotton threads⁴².

Chemistry researchers Joseph Marino and Mervyn Benford hypothesised that the three samples tested for carbon-14 came from non-original Shroud fabric⁴³. According to this theory, Margaret of Austria, wife of the Duke of Savoy, had a fragment of the Shroud removed to donate it to a church she had founded.
Someone would then have repaired the cloth using more recent fabric. But Flury-Lemberg, an ancient fabrics expert, found no traces of mending when examining the Shroud during its 2002 restoration⁴⁴.

The mysterious coins

In 1979, Francis Filas, a Loyola University professor, claimed to have discovered a coin image on the Shroud’s right eyelid⁴⁵. The scholar identified the imprint by observing black and white photographs taken by Giuseppe Enrie in 1931. Moreover, Filas recognised the representation of the lituus, the effigy of the Roman emperor Tiberius, and the letters “UCAI”. Therefore, the coin would date back to the time of Pontius Pilate, between 29 and 32 AD. According to Baima Bollone and Nello Balossino, another coin depicting a simpulum would be found on the left eyebrow⁴⁶.

However, the Shroud’s image has too low a resolution (about 0.5 cm) to reveal millimetre-scale details. In addition, the issue struck under Emperor Tiberius and circulating in Palestine bore the inscription ΤΙΒΕΡΙΟΥ ΚΑΙΣΑΡΟΣ, without the U and C glimpsed by Filas⁴⁷. Finally, there is no trace of these coins in recent photographs of the Shroud or in its three-dimensional scans. Was it just a case of pareidolia?

Pollen and plants

Finally, we report on the investigation conducted by Zurich criminologist Max Frei-Sulzer, who in 1973 analysed the dust and pollen deposited on the Shroud using electron microscopy. The scholar claimed to have identified 60 different species of pollen, including 21 originating in Palestine and one in Constantinople⁴⁸, concluding that this palynological distribution is consistent with the history of the relic. Frei-Sulzer was criticised for not taking into account contamination that had occurred over the centuries⁴⁹. Furthermore, it seems unlikely that he could distinguish such a large number of plant species from a few pollen residues, when it would already be difficult to identify the genus.

The mystery of the Holy Shroud

“He is destined for the fall and rise of many in Israel, and to be a sign that will be opposed, so that the secret thoughts of many will be revealed”.

Gospel of Luke 2:34-35.

In conclusion, what is the Holy Shroud really? If the cloth preserved in Turin is authentic, it is evidence of a supernatural event, which transcends history while occurring within history, of a death and resurrection, of the existence of something that goes beyond this world. If it is not, it remains the work of a genius, an extraordinary artefact that still defies scientific understanding. How was it possible in the Middle Ages to create such a complex and, at the same time, enigmatic work? But the Shroud is above all a sign of a mystery that continues to divide consciences and question humanity about the relationship between reason and faith, curiosity and hope.

Samuele Corrente Naso

Notes

1. From A. Nicolotti, La Sindone di Torino in quanto tessuto: analisi storica, tecnica, comparativa, in V. Polidori, Non solum circulatoroum ludo similia, 2018. ↩︎
2. Archives Départementales de l’Aube, fond du chapitre Notre-Dame de Lirey, sous-série 9G, 1, Copie du titre de fondation par Geoffroy de Charny accordée par Philippe VI donnée par Jean le Bon en 1353; collection Contassot, I 17, Fondation et Histoire du Chapitre. Fondation par Geoffroy de Charni, seigneur de Savoisy et de Lirey, d’une collégiale en son village de Lirey, sous l’invocation de l’Annonciation de la Vierge, 20 juin 1353. ↩︎
3. Clement VII was the Avignon antipope during the Western Schism. ↩︎
4. Bibliothèque Nationale de France, Département des Manuscrits, Collection de Champagne, v. 154. fol.137; fol.138, Memorandum di Pierre d’Arcis, 1389. ↩︎
5. Ibidem. ↩︎
6. Bibliothèque Nationale de France, Département des Manuscrits, Collection de Champagne, v. 154. fol. 128-130, August 1389. ↩︎
7. Bibliothèque Nationale de France, ms. 10410, fol. 110r, 17th-century copy. ↩︎
8. U. Chevalier, Étude critique sur l’origine du Saint-Suaire de Lirey-Chambéry-Turin, 1900. ↩︎
9. Archives Départementales de l’Aube, fond du chapitre Notre-Dame de Lirey, collection Contassot, I 19, Reçu délivré par Humbert, comte de La Roche, seigneur de Villersexel et de Lirey, aux chanoines de Lirey, énumérant la liste des joyaux et reliques qu’ils lui ont confiés, 6 juillet 1418. ↩︎
10. Archivio di Stato di Torino, Benefizi di qua dai monti, mazzo 31, n. 3. ↩︎
11. By Rudolf Berwanger – Giuseppe Enrie, 1931, CC BY-SA 4.0, link to the image. ↩︎
12. Gervasio di Tilbury, Otia imperialia, iii, 25, 1215 circa. Gervasio di Tilbury states: “Est ergo Veronica pictura Domini vera“. ↩︎
13. I. Wilson, Holy faces, secret places: an amazing quest for the face of Jesus, Doubleday, New York, 1991. ↩︎
14. D. da Bomba, Relatione historica d’una miracolosa immagine del volto di Christo, 1646. ↩︎
15. By Ra Boe / Wikipedia, CC BY-SA 3.0 de, link to the image. ↩︎
16. Parisinus Graecus 548, 10th century. See L. Moraldi, Apocrifi del Nuovo Testamento, Piemme, Casale Monferrato, 1994. ↩︎
17. Eusebius of Caesarea, Ecclesiastical History, Book I, 13:1-3. ↩︎
18. Evagrius Scholasticus, Ecclesiastical History, PG 86, 2745–2748, 6th century. ↩︎
19. P. G. di Domenico, Atti del Concilio Niceno Secondo Ecumenico Settimo, Città del Vaticano, 2004. ↩︎
20. John of Damascus, Discourses on Images, I, 33; An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, 89. ↩︎
21. Ian Wilson, The Shroud of Turin, the Burial Cloth of Jesus Christ?, Image Books, Garden City, 1979. ↩︎
22. Sermon of Gregory Referendarius, Vatican Codex Gr. 511 ff. 143-150v. ↩︎
23. T. Madden, D. Queller, The forth crusade: the conquest of Constantinople, University of Pennsylvania Press, 1997. ↩︎
24. I. Wilson, The Blood and the Shroud, The Free Press, New York, 1998. ↩︎
25. E. Marinelli, Sindone, un’immagine impossibile, Edizioni San Paolo, 1998. ↩︎
26. Gospel of John 20:5-6. ↩︎
27. P. Baima Bollone, Sindon, giugno 2000. ↩︎
28. L. Garlaschelli, L’inganno della Sindone, in Micromega, 4, 2010. ↩︎
29. M. Borrini, L. Garlaschelli, A BPA Approach to the Shroud of Turin, 66th Annual Scientific Meeting of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences, February 17‐22, 2014, in Journal of Forensic Sciences, Seattle, 10 luglio 2018.  ↩︎
30. B. Hontanilla Calatayud, Signs of Life in the Figure of the Shroud of Turin, in Scientia et Fides, 8 (1), 2020. ↩︎
31. P. Barbet, La Passion de Jésus Christ selon le chirurgien, 1950. ↩︎
32. G. Filogamo, A. Zina, Esami microscopici sulla tela sindonica, supplemento Rivista diocesana Torinese, 1976. ↩︎
33. G. Frache, E. Mari Rizzati, E. Mari, Relazione conclusiva sulle indagini d’ordine ematologico praticate su materiale prelevato dalla Sindone, supplemento Rivista diocesana Torinese, 1976. ↩︎
34. W. C. McCrone, Microscopical study of the Turin Shroud, in Wiener Berichte über Naturwissenschaft in der Kunst, 1987. ↩︎
35. J. H. Heller e A. D. Adler, Blood on the Shroud of Turin, in Applied Optics, vol. 19, n. 16, 1980. ↩︎
36. L. Garlaschelli, Il Mistero del Telo Sindonico, in La Chimica e l’Industria, n. 80, 1998. ↩︎
37. P. Baima Bollone, M. Jorio, A. L. Massaro, La dimostrazione della presenza di tracce di sangue umano sulla Sindone, in Sindon, vol. 5, n. 30, 1981. ↩︎
38. A. Nicolotti, La Sindone di Torino in quanto tessuto: analisi storica, tecnica, comparativa, in V. Polidori, Non solum circulatorum ludo similia, Amazon kdp, 2018; A. Lombatti, La Sindone e il giudaismo al tempo di Gesù, CICAP, 3/2/2009. ↩︎
39. D. King, A Parallel for the Linen of the Turin Shroud, Centre International d’Étude des Textiles Anciens, Bulletin 67, 1989; D. King, S. Leve, The Victoria & Albert Museum’s Textile Collection: Embroidery in Britain from 1200 to 1750, 1993. ↩︎
40. P. E. Damon et al., Radiocarbon dating of the Shroud of Turin, in Nature, Vol. 337, No. 6208, 1989. ↩︎
41. H. E. Gove, S. J. Mattingly, A. R. David, L. A. Garza-Valdes, A problematic source of organic contamination of linen, in Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research, B 123, 1997. ↩︎
42. R. A. Freer-Waters, A. J. Timothy Jull, Investigating a Dated Piece of the Shroud of Turin, in Radiocarbon, 52, 2016. ↩︎
43. Joseph G. Marino, M. Sue Benford, Discrepancies in the radiocarbon dafing area of the Turin shroud, in Chemistry Today 26 (4), 2008.  ↩︎
44. Mechthild Flury-Lemberg, The Invisible Mending of the Shroud, the Theory and the Reality, British Society for the Turin Shroud Newsletter, 65, 2007. ↩︎
45. F. Filas, Biblical Archeologist, 1981. ↩︎
46. Ibidem note 27. ↩︎
47. G. M. Rinaldi, La farsa delle monetine sugli occhi, CICAP, 3/2/2009. ↩︎
48. M. Frei-Sulzer, Nine Years of Palynological Studies on the Shroud, in Shroud Spectrum International, 3, 1982. ↩︎
49. Bernard Ruffin, The Shroud of Turin: the most up-to-date analysis of all the facts regarding the Church’s controversial relic, Our Sunday Visitor Publishing, 1999; Paul Craddock, Scientific investigation of copies, fakes and forgeries, Butterworth-Heinemann, 2009. ↩︎