The Shroud of Turin is under scrutiny again: a new scientific dispute about a “medieval forgery”

A few meters of linen cloth with a faint imprint of a male figure has divided scientists, theologians and skeptics for centuries. A fresh wave of debate, sparked by a new article in the journal Archaeometry and a sharp response from leading researchers, shows that the “battle over the origins” of the Shroud of Turin is far from over, and science continues to work at the interface between faith, history and physics.

The origin of the Shroud of Turin has remained a mystery since its discovery (Image: Getty Images)

A new twist: how one 3D model reignited a global debate

The impetus for the next round of controversy was the work of Brazilian graphic expert Cicero Moraes, published in the peer-reviewed journal Archaeometry.^{1 3} The researcher used three-dimensional modeling to show that if the cloth is placed not on a real body, but on a shallow bas-relief — a flat relief with a slight rise — the resulting image in shape and proportions more closely resembles the image on the shroud than when covering a living person.^{1 3} . Hence his conclusion: it is more likely that we are seeing the result of the work of a medieval artist who used a stone or metal "matrix", rather than an imprint of the actual body of the deceased.

The British tabloid The Mirror picked up on the story as "a new twist in the battle over the origins of the Shroud," emphasizing that Moraes is actually reinforcing a long-standing line of skeptics who, after radiocarbon dating in 1988, consider the relic to be an elaborate 14th-century forgery.^{1 3} But almost immediately after that, in the same Archaeometry, a hard-hitting scientific response appeared from three respected researchers specializing in the Shroud of Turin — Tristan Casascina, Emanuela Marinelli, and Alessandro Piana.^{1 5 8} They accused Moraes of a number of methodological errors and stated that his model only explains the geometry, but ignores key physical and historical features of the relic.

What's wrong with the "bas-relief" hypothesis: arguments for a scientific response

The main criticism of opponents is that Moraes' digital model fails to take into account two fundamental properties of the image on the shroud. First, the image is extremely superficial: the coloring touches only the upper fibers of the linen thread, without the deep penetration of the dye or the thermal damage that would be expected from contact with relief or pigment.^{1 3 5} Secondly, independent studies have repeatedly recorded real traces of blood on the canvas, in particular with signs of serum halos and the corresponding chemical composition, which is poorly consistent with the hypothesis of a completely “artistic” origin.^{1 5 6} .

Kazaskina, Marinelli and Piana argue that the "fabric + bas-relief" model should, by definition, create a contact image - with clearer areas of contact and gaps where the fabric does not fit.^{1 5} The real image on the shroud is much more delicate, with smooth transitions of intensity that resemble not so much a print as the result of a complex physico-chemical process (for example, dehydration of cellulose or exposure to some kind of radiation).^{4 6 8} In their opinion, Moraes' model may be useful as a geometric experiment, but it does not stand up to the full body of empirical data collected over decades of research.

Historical front: where and when could the image seen on the shroud have appeared?

A separate block of criticism concerns the historical context. The argument in favor of a “medieval artist” is based on the fact that the shroud is first reliably recorded in Europe only in the 14th century, when it is shown in the French Lire as a relic of the Passion of Christ.^{1 6 9} Radiocarbon dating in 1988, carried out by three laboratories under the coordination of the British Museum, prima facie confirmed this version, giving an interval of 1260–1390 AD.^{6 9} It is these results that many still consider the "final verdict" on the authenticity of the shroud.

However, here too, a “new turn” has long occurred: textile experts and chemists have shown that a sample of fabric for radiocarbon analysis could have been taken from an area where restoration work was carried out in the Middle Ages, mixing old and new fibers.^{6 8} . American chemist Ray Rogers published an analysis in the early 2000s, according to which the dating sample contained modern dyes and impurities that were absent from the bulk of the canvas.⁸ Added to this are new studies of the isotopic composition of flax, which indicate a Middle Eastern origin of the raw material - the region where, according to biblical tradition, Jesus was supposed to be buried.^{2 7} Taken together, this gives reason to at least doubt the simple formula "European forgery of the 14th century."

Scientific arguments "for antiquity": from pollen to X-ray methods

In recent decades, several independent lines of evidence have been gathered in favor of the Shroud's possible ancient origin. First, palynological studies (pollen analysis) have shown the presence on the fabric of plant seeds typical of the vicinity of Jerusalem and the eastern Mediterranean in general - this does not directly prove authenticity, but it does cast doubt on the purely "European" scenario of the cloth's origin.^{2 4 7} . Secondly, some researchers claim that the facial area shows traces of coin impressions similar to Roman lemtas from the 1st century AD, although this interpretation remains debatable.^{3 6} .

The latest wave of interest is associated with new methods of dating tissues based on the state of the cellulose crystal lattice and the analysis of its degradation. Italian scientists from the Institute of Crystallography, using the method of wide-angle X-ray scattering (WAXS), obtained results that are consistent with an age of about 2000 years - that is, with the era of Christ, not with the Middle Ages.^{4 5 7} Other studies of flax isotopes, conducted in Hong Kong laboratories, indicate the origin of the raw material from the Levant, not from Western Europe.² Together, these data do not close the question, but make the picture much more complex than a simple "legend and forgery."

What the Church says: between caution and openness to science

Italian Cardinal Roberto Repole, the Archbishop of Turin and the official custodian of the Shroud, last year publicly warned against drawing "superficial conclusions" based on individual new studies, regardless of whose favor they serve.^{1 5} The Church does not, in principle, declare the shroud "proof of the resurrection" and does not require believers to believe in its authenticity, but at the same time allows scientists to study the relic to the extent possible and provided that the fabric is preserved.^{5 6} This position effectively acknowledges that the final verdict does not belong to theologians, but to time, new methods, and interdisciplinary work.

For Catholic media, the current discussion has become an occasion to remind that even if the shroud turns out to be the work of a medieval genius, this does not negate its cultural value and role in the history of Christian Europe.^{2 5} . At the same time, all new data — from the isotopic composition of the linen to X-ray analyses — are carefully recorded and used as a counterargument to those who hastily call the relic a “cheap fake.” In fact, the church’s position today coincides with scientific caution: claims of forgery require just as much rigorous substantiation as claims of authenticity.

Why this debate matters beyond theology

The battle over the origins of the Shroud of Turin is not just a dispute over whose hands held the cloth 2000 years ago. It exposes a fundamental tension between the scientific method, historical criticism, and society's need for symbols and meaning.^{4 6 8} . Every new article—whether Moraes's with his bas-relief or opponents' with their analysis of surface color and blood—instantly becomes part of an information war between different camps, who often only read the headlines, not the methodology.

For Ukrainian audiences, this story also resonates because we live in a time of radical distrust of both institutions and narratives that seem “ready-made.” The controversy over the Shroud is a reminder that even in matters that touch on faith and emotion, critical thinking is not hostile, and uncertainty is not always a sign of deception; sometimes it is an honest state of knowledge at a certain stage.^{4 6} In a world where technology allows both forgery and detection with incredible precision, it is the transparency of methods and the willingness to acknowledge the limitations of one's own conclusions that become the main currency of trust.

Sources

1. The Mirror: "New twist in the battle over the origin of the Turin Shroud" – news about Cicero Moraes' article in Archaeometry and the sharp scientific response from three Shroud researchers.
2. The Catholic Herald: article about isotopic tests of linen that indicate the origin of the shroud from the Levant, not from medieval Western Europe.
3. The Realist Juggernaut: A review of Moraes' work and a description of his 3D bas-relief model as a possible technique for creating an image.
4. Al Jazeera / Scientific Reviews: Publications on new X-ray dating methods (WAXS) and conclusions of Italian researchers on the age of the fabric compatible with the 1st century.
5. The Archaeologist: an article about new results from Italian laboratories that date the shroud material to approximately 2000 years old.
6. Wikipedia: "Shroud of Turin" - a summary of historical data, a description of the 1988 radiocarbon dating, and the main scientific arguments of skeptics and supporters of authenticity.
7. Zenit / ICN: reports of isotopic and textile studies questioning the simple interpretation of the Shroud as a medieval forgery.
8. EWTN / Gaudium Press: materials on criticism of new skeptical research from Shroud study centers and the Church's role in moderating the discussion.