Turin Shroud medieval forgery theory taken down by new scientific rebuttal
Shroud is said to bear the imprint of Jesus after his crucifixion and burial, but a new study has reignited the debate over its origin
Debate and intrigue surrounding the Shroud of Turin have reignited, as a new scientific response challenges a widely publicised claim that the relic is a medieval forgery rather than an authentic impression of Jesus following the Crucifixion.
A fresh rebuttal published in the peer‐reviewed journal Archaeometry takes issue with research by Brazilian scientist Cicero Moraes, who last summer presented findings in the same publication comparing how fabric behaves when placed over both a living individual and a sculpture created on a flat surface with shallow, elevated features.
He concluded that an impression from a shallow carved relief matched the shape and dimensions seen on the Shroud far more closely - and has since defended his work.
The Shroud, housed in Turin's Cathedral of St John the Baptist, is believed to display the imprint of Jesus following his crucifixion and entombment. The linen cloth, measuring 14.5 feet by 3.7 feet, shows a faint image of a male figure bearing wounds consistent with crucifixion.
Read more: I ordered a water at huge new Spoons - staff didn't know what to say
Read more: Couple find 20-year-old creepy note behind wall during bathroom renovation
Read more: World's only underwater roundabout is inside 6.9-mile tunnel near the UK
For centuries, it has been venerated as a holy relic dating back over 2,000 years. Despite questions over its legitimacy, the narrative has endured through the ages since the artefact first emerged in France during the 14th Century.
In 1989, radiocarbon dating suggested the shroud originated during the medieval era, specifically between 1260 and 1390 CE. Subsequent studies cast doubt on these results, proposing the tested sample might have been taken from a patched area of the fabric.
Using 3D modelling technology, Moraes proposed the image was formed by draping the cloth over a shallow relief carving, possibly crafted from wood, stone or metal, which would have acted as a template to produce the desired impression.
Yet three experts on the Shroud – Tristan Casabianca, Emanuela Marinelli and Alessandro Piana – now claim Moraes' digital reconstruction contains flaws and overlooks characteristics that make the relic so challenging to explain.
The specialists contend the modelling disregards two fundamental facts: the image is surface-level (only affecting the uppermost fibre layer), and there is separate evidence of genuine blood present on the fabric. Both observations, they maintain, contradict the notion of a medieval craftsman as the creator.
They further assert the forgery hypothesis relies on an inconsistent mixture of time periods and locations that fail to align coherently. The historian William Dale, most frequently referenced by Moraes, actually proposed the Shroud's aesthetic appeared Byzantine – at least two centuries prior and far removed from 14th Century France.
This, the specialists argue, undermines the assertion that a medieval French craftsman could have envisioned and produced such an image, particularly of a naked, full-length, post-crucifixion Christ – a depiction virtually unknown in medieval Western artwork.
Moraes has replied in the same journal, standing by his conclusions but stressing his work was “strictly methodological”, focused on how bodies deform when projected onto cloth. He also points to four artworks from the 11th to 14th centuries as possible inspirations – though, as the rebuttal notes, none show the specific, stark scene seen on the Shroud.
He says he has made the study available for public download, allowing any researcher to replicate, audit, or modify the experiment. that members of the Shroud of Turin Research Project have publicly defended the medieval origin theory, and the critics themselves wrote that their results "do not imply that the medieval hypothesis should be ruled out".
Moraes also provided direct links to tomb effigies from the 11th to 14th Centuries that demonstrate the existence of an artistic culture consistent with the structure of the image.
The Archbishop of Turin, Cardinal Roberto Repole – guardian of the Shroud – cautioned last year against "superficial" conclusions in some recent assertions, advocating for more thorough examination.
