Supernatural vs. scientific knowledge: Can researchers uncover the mystery of the Shroud of Turin?

Probably, there is no more famous and enigmatic relic in the world that has sparked as much controversy as the Shroud of Turin. Supporters of its divine origin believe that this is the very cloth that covered the body of Christ after it was taken down from the cross. Skeptics refer to numerous pieces of evidence indicating that the fabric was made in the 12th-13th centuries, and that it was not considered a holy relic by contemporaries (i.e., during the Middle Ages) but rather a theatrical prop for religious celebrations or one of many artistic reconstructions of the real Shroud, which was lost many centuries ago.

As for the representatives of faith, both the Catholic and Orthodox churches avoid making official comments on this matter. Periodically, new arguments appear in the public domain supporting one viewpoint or another, reigniting the debate with renewed vigor. This time was no different. The catalyst for the new round of discussions was a study organized by scientists from the Institute of Crystallography back in 2022, which the world media regularly revisits.

So, how old is it really?

What is the essence of the research? Several scientists, commissioned by William Meacham, a board member of the Shroud of Turin Education and Research Association (STERA), devised a new method for dating the relic.

Supporters of its divine origin believe that this is the very cloth that covered the body of Christ after it was taken down from the cross.

Photo: GLOBAL LOOK PRESS.

Previously, in 1988, three leading global laboratories (from Oxford University, the University of Arizona, and the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology) had already determined the age of the shroud. Independently of each other, they reached the same conclusion: it was created between 1260 and 1390 AD and could not possibly be the burial cloth of Jesus from 33 AD. The scientists employed the repeatedly tested and internationally recognized method of radiocarbon dating, which is based on measurements of the residual radioactive isotope Carbon-14 in the material.

The innovators' know-how (the so-called WAXS method) was based on the use of X-rays to measure the degradation of the linen cellulose fibers from which the cloth is woven. The STERA researchers measured the extent of the degradation over time of long chains of sugar molecules. As a result, they arrived at the desired date of the fabric's creation—2000 years ago. The "Komsomolskaya Pravda" wrote about this.

Now skeptics have made their counter-move. The arguments that refute the findings made under the auspices of STERA were presented by Andrea Nicolotti—a professor of Christian history at the University of Turin.

His evidence draws from a variety of fields:

1. What Physics Says

If radiocarbon “clocks” are hard to deceive—the half-life of Carbon-14 is constant at 5730 years—then the aging of cellulose is a random process. It largely depends on storage and usage conditions: humidity, temperature, mechanical impact (friction), exposure to sunlight, chemicals, etc. Most of these factors are impossible to account for when dealing with hundreds or thousands of years. Furthermore, the accuracy of radiocarbon dating has been reliably verified, for example, through dendrochronology (dating by tree rings). However, the WAXS method was specifically designed to determine the age of the Shroud. No one else has ever used it. Therefore, it is impossible to understand what it shows on objects whose ages are reliably known. The discrepancies in the WAXS method were so apparent that even the journal published by the Center for Sindonology in Turin (which seeks to prove the authenticity of the Shroud) urged readers to approach the conclusions of the STERA researchers with caution.

Photo: GLOBAL LOOK PRESS.

2. Could Contamination Distort the Results of Radiocarbon Studies?

Supporters of the miraculous origin of the Shroud sought explanations for why the reliable carbon method could yield an error. And they found one. They assert that the discrepancy arose due to contamination that the fabric underwent. Such an effect could have been caused by candle smoke, the sweat from hands that touched the cloth, or the soot that impregnated the fabric during the fire of 1532. Moreover, to clean the fabric, it was boiled in hot oil... However, the radiocarbon method is known to be minimally sensitive to such contaminants.

- To distort the Carbon-14 dating by 1300 years, it would require that for every 100 carbon atoms originally present in the fabric, an additional 500, dated to 1532, were added due to contamination, - explains Professor Nicolotti. - In practice, this means that the contaminant must be several times more abundant than the fabric itself, which is absurd.

3. Results of Textile Expertise

- The study of the fabric showed that the textile of the relic has a complex structure that would require a sufficiently advanced weaving loom, - states the scientist. - Most likely, a horizontal foot-powered loom with four heddles (a device that raises or lowers the warp threads, allowing the weft threads to pass through the created space - Ed.) was used in making the cloth. Such looms were introduced in the 13th century by Flemish craftsmen. Additionally, archaeological evidence proves that the weaving pattern of the Shroud is completely different from all fabrics woven in ancient Palestine.

The Cathedral of St. Giovanni Battista, known for the Shroud of Jesus Christ, dates back to 1498.

Photo: GLOBAL LOOK PRESS.

4. In the Middle Ages, the Pope Did Not Consider the Shroud Authentic

However, Nicolotti believes that the historical context is more important than the textile analysis. According to medieval sources, there were several dozen shrouds in Europe at different times. The Turin Shroud is not the earliest; rather, it is one of the latest. It is first mentioned in historical records around 1355 and was initially displayed in a small rural church in Lirey (France). In 1389, the bishop of the city of Troyes complained to the Pope about the priests from Lirey, who, he claimed, sought to attract pilgrims by commissioning an artist to paint the cloth. The Pope allowed the Lirey clergy to display the cloth, but required them to publicly warn pilgrims that this was not the genuine Shroud, but a replica.

However, over time, the popularity of the Lirey Shroud grew, and subsequent heads of the Catholic Church began to encourage its veneration. In the 17th century, it was moved to Turin and displayed in public squares during large gatherings. This is how we know what the Turin Shroud actually looked like. In 1613, Italian artist Antonio Tempesta created an engraving titled “The Ceremony of the Exhibition of the Shroud in Turin,” which is now housed in the Harvard Art Museum. The engraving clearly shows two important things. Firstly, the Shroud displays a bright and clear image of the body, rather than the barely discernible outlines seen today. Secondly, it is a regular positive image, not a negative. Over time, the colored layer deteriorated and faded, and the fabric fibers changed color due to exposure to dyes and ultraviolet light (the fading effect).

THERE IS AN OPINION!

However, supporters of the miraculous origin of the Turin Shroud believe that scientific evidence plays no role. They argue that the relic was created by supernatural forces. According to one such version, during the resurrection of Christ, a “powerful neutron burst” occurred, which “enriched” the Shroud with the radioactive isotope Carbon-14. At the same time, it left a negative image of the Savior on the fabric. In this case, science truly cannot explain anything. The study of supernatural phenomena is not its strong suit.