# The Shroud of Turin is the burial cloth of Jesus of Nazareth

**No verdict.** Three independent labs dated the linen to the 1260s–1390s, matching its first appearance in the historical record almost exactly; but the image's formation mechanism has never been fully reproduced, and proponents dispute the dating itself, keeping the question genuinely open.

Category: Lost History & Ancient Mysteries · Era: Medieval to modern · First circulated: c. 1354–1357 (documented display); modern scientific debate from 1988 · Believed by: venerated by many Catholics as a sacred relic; the Church itself takes no official position on authenticity
URL: https://theconspiratory.com/theory/shroud-of-turin

## Summary
A fourteen-foot linen cloth bearing the faint image of a crucified man, venerated by millions as the burial shroud of Jesus. Radiocarbon dating places it in the Middle Ages, matching its documented origin almost exactly; but the image's formation has never been fully explained, and the dating itself remains disputed.

## The claim
That the Shroud of Turin is the actual burial cloth in which the body of Jesus of Nazareth was wrapped after his crucifixion, and that the faint image on its surface (of a bearded man bearing wounds consistent with scourging, a crown of thorns, and crucifixion) was imprinted at or around the moment of his resurrection.

## Origin and timeline
- c. 1354–1357: The Shroud's first solidly documented appearance: French knight Geoffroi de Charny endows a collegiate church in Lirey, and the cloth is displayed there as Christ's burial shroud, drawing large crowds of pilgrims.
- c. 1389: Pierre d'Arcis, Bishop of Troyes, writes a memorandum to Pope Clement VII objecting to the Lirey exhibitions, stating that his predecessor had investigated the cloth decades earlier and that an artist had confessed to painting it.
- 1578: The Shroud is moved to Turin, Italy, where it has remained ever since, eventually passing to the House of Savoy and then to the Vatican in 1983.
- 1898: Amateur photographer Secondo Pia takes the first photographs of the Shroud and discovers that its negative image reads as a startlingly clear positive, reviving scientific and public interest.
- 1978: The Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP), a team of American scientists, conducts five days of direct physical examination and concludes the image is not paint but cannot identify how it was formed.
- 1988: Laboratories at the University of Oxford, the University of Arizona, and the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH) in Zurich, coordinated by the British Museum, radiocarbon-date a single sample and report a range of AD 1260–1390.
- 2005: Chemist Raymond Rogers, formerly of Los Alamos National Laboratory, publishes a peer-reviewed paper arguing the 1988 sample came from a later, chemically distinct repair rather than the Shroud's original weave.

## The evidence, claim by claim
- Claim: The 1988 test was performed by reputable, independent labs, so the medieval date should be considered settled.
  Evidence: The three labs did work independently and their results agreed closely with each other, converging on a 95%-confidence range of AD 1260–1390. But 'independent measurement of the same sample' is not the same as 'representative sample,' and that is precisely the point proponents contest: not the competence of the labs, but whether the single swatch they were given represented the whole cloth.
- Claim: The tested corner was a later medieval mending patch, so the true cloth is far older.
  Evidence: This is a live, peer-reviewed dispute rather than a settled fact on either side. Raymond Rogers's 2005 chemistry pointed to contamination in that corner; a subsequent peer-reviewed analysis found no mass-spectrometric evidence of an 'invisible reweave' and attributed Rogers's result to a different contaminant, and a 2010 microscopy study of leftover sample fragments found only minor cotton contamination consistent with dating original material. Statisticians have separately flagged unexplained heterogeneity in the twelve raw 1988 measurements, which keeps the underlying question of sample representativeness open even among specialists who accept the radiocarbon method itself.
- Claim: No artist, medieval or modern, has ever fully reproduced the image using a known period technique.
  Evidence: This is broadly accurate and is the strongest unresolved piece of the whole case. STURP's 1978 examination found the discoloration sits only on the topmost fibers of the cloth with no penetration or brushstroke pattern, and concluded no single hypothesis then available explained every observed property of the image simultaneously. That STURP could not explain the mechanism is a real, published finding; it is not, by itself, evidence of a miraculous origin, since 'not yet explained' and 'inexplicable in principle' are different claims.
- Claim: The blood is real human blood, type AB, exactly matching the wound pattern of a crucifixion victim.
  Evidence: STURP chemists Heller and Adler identified the reddish stains as blood-derived, and a competing analysis by microscopist Walter McCrone concluded the same stains were consistent with a red pigment (vermilion) rather than blood; the two teams' results have never been reconciled by a neutral third analysis, and blood-type serology on cloth this old and this handled is not considered forensically reliable by mainstream forensic scientists regardless of which side is right about its origin.

## Why people believe it
- For believers, the Shroud sits inside a preexisting framework of faith in the Resurrection: a physical object that could corroborate a belief already held for other, primarily theological and scriptural, reasons.
- The image's unexplained formation mechanism functions, for many, as a standing scientific mystery that keeps the door open regardless of what the radiocarbon evidence shows, since an unsolved 'how' feels to many people like stronger evidence than a solved 'when.'
- Centuries of devotional practice, papal veneration (without a formal declaration of authenticity), and the Shroud's role as a focus of Catholic pilgrimage give it a weight that operates independently of any single scientific test; belief in relics has historically never rested on laboratory proof.

## Open questions
- The image's formation mechanism still has no fully accepted scientific explanation. STURP's 1978 examination found the coloring confined to the topmost fibers of the cloth with no pigment, brushstroke pattern, or capillary wicking, a real, published finding. A 2009–2010 replica built from medieval-era materials reproduced several of the same properties at once, but not every researcher accepts that it matches the original to the same degree in every respect, and 'not yet fully reproduced' is not the same as 'physically impossible.'
- The 1988 radiocarbon date and the objection that the tested corner was a later repair remain a genuine, live dispute. Raymond Rogers' 2005 chemistry pointed to contamination consistent with a rewoven patch; a 2015 re-analysis of the same mass-spectrometry data and a 2010 microscopy study of leftover sample fragments found no clear evidence supporting that conclusion, and statisticians have separately flagged unexplained heterogeneity in the twelve raw 1988 measurements. No new sample has been tested since to settle the question directly.
- The cloth's history before its documented appearance at Lirey around 1354 is genuinely unclear. The d'Arcis memorandum describes a fourteenth-century controversy over the cloth's origin, but no independently corroborated record survives from before that point to confirm or rule out an earlier history.
- Whether the reddish stains are blood or pigment has never been resolved by a neutral referee. STURP chemists Heller and Adler identified them as blood-derived; microscopist Walter McCrone concluded the same stains were consistent with red-ochre and vermilion pigment. The two analyses directly contradict each other, and no third study has definitively settled which is correct.

## Sources
- Radiocarbon dating of the Shroud of Turin, Damon, P.E., Donahue, D.J., Gore, B.H., et al., Nature, vol. 337, pp. 611–615 (University of Oxford, University of Arizona, and ETH Zurich, coordinated by the British Museum) (1989): https://www.nature.com/articles/337611a0
- Studies on the Radiocarbon Sample from the Shroud of Turin, Raymond N. Rogers, Thermochimica Acta, vol. 425, pp. 189–194 (2005): https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0040603104004745
- There Is No Mass Spectrometry Evidence That the C14 Sample from the Shroud of Turin Comes from a 'Medieval Invisible Mending', Marco Bella, Luigi Garlaschelli, and Roberto Samperi, Thermochimica Acta, vol. 617, pp. 169–171 (2015): https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0040603115003093
- Investigating a Dated Piece of the Shroud of Turin, Rachel A. Freer-Waters and A.J.T. Jull, Radiocarbon, vol. 52, no. 4, pp. 1521–1527 (2010): https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/radiocarbon/article/investigating-a-dated-piece-of-the-shroud-of-turin/8CC26C322198300E051C49A0BA5B96D9
- Memorandum of Pierre d'Arcis, Bishop of Troyes, to Antipope Clement VII (primary 14th-century historical document, trans. Herbert Thurston), Archives of the Diocese of Troyes, France, c. 1389: https://www.priory-of-sion.com/biblios/links/memorandum.html
- Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP) summary findings, 1978 STURP team; published examination summary (1981): https://www.shroud.com/78conclu.htm
- Blood on the Shroud of Turin, John H. Heller and Alan D. Adler, Applied Optics, vol. 19, no. 16, pp. 2742–2744 (1980): https://opg.optica.org/ao/abstract.cfm?uri=ao-19-16-2742
- The Shroud of Turin: Blood or Artist's Pigment?, Walter C. McCrone, Accounts of Chemical Research, vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 77–83 (1990): https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/ar00171a004
- Life-size Reproduction of the Shroud of Turin and its Image, Luigi Garlaschelli, Journal of Imaging Science and Technology, vol. 54, no. 4, art. 040301 (2010): https://library.imaging.org/jist/articles/54/4/art00002

Rated by The Conspiratory, a neutral, sourced encyclopedia of conspiracy theories. Full page: https://theconspiratory.com/theory/shroud-of-turin