The Shroud of Turin (Italian: Sindone di Torino), also called the Holy Shroud (Italian: Sacra Sindone), is a piece of linen cloth that shows a faint image of a man's body on both sides. The image matches how Jesus of Nazareth is traditionally shown after his death by crucifixion, which is why Christians, especially members of the Catholic Church, have honored the shroud for centuries as the cloth on which Jesus' image was miraculously imprinted. The image is easier to see in black-and-white photographs than in its natural brown color. This discovery was made in 1898 by Secondo Pia, who took the first photographs of the shroud. This black-and-white image is linked to a Catholic devotion called the Holy Face of Jesus.

The recorded history of the shroud begins in 1354, when it was displayed in the new collegiate church of Lirey, a village in north-central France. In 1389, the bishop of Troyes, Pierre d'Arcis, claimed the shroud was a fake. The shroud was acquired by the House of Savoy in 1453 and later placed in a chapel in Chambéry, where it was damaged by fire in 1532. In 1578, the Savoys moved the shroud to their new capital in Turin, where it has remained since. Since 1683, the shroud has been kept in the Chapel of the Holy Shroud, designed by architect Guarino Guarini. This chapel is connected to the royal palace and the Turin Cathedral. Ownership of the shroud passed from the House of Savoy to the Catholic Church after the death of King Umberto II of Italy in 1983.

In 1978, Walter McCrone, a scientist who studies tiny details and forensic evidence, examined samples taken from the shroud using adhesive tape. He found that the image was painted with a diluted mix of red ochre pigment in a gelatin medium. He also discovered that the bloodstains appeared to be painted with vermilion pigment in the same gelatin medium. These findings were challenged by other researchers, and the true nature of the image remains debated. In 1988, three independent laboratories used radiocarbon dating to determine the shroud's age, concluding it dates to the Middle Ages, between 1260 and 1390.

The shroud's nature and history have caused long-lasting debates in both scholarly studies and the media. While experts accept the radiocarbon dating results as valid, the findings continue to spark public discussion. Supporters of the shroud's authenticity often question the dating, suggesting the tested samples might have been contaminated or taken from a repair to the original fabric. These theories, such as the medieval repair theory, bio-contamination theories, and the carbon monoxide theory, have been rejected by most experts. Currently, the Catholic Church does not officially support or deny the shroud's status as a relic of Jesus.

Description

The shroud is rectangular and measures about 4.4 by 1.1 meters (14 feet 5 inches × 3 feet 7 inches). It is woven using a three-to-one herringbone twill pattern made from flax fibers. Its most noticeable feature is a faint, brownish image showing the front and back of a naked man with his hands crossed over his groin. The two views are lined up along the center of the body and face opposite directions. The front and back images of the head nearly meet in the middle of the cloth.

The image on the crown of the cloth fibers appears to be a man with a beard, mustache, and shoulder-length hair split in the middle. He looks muscular and tall, with height estimates ranging from 1.70 to 1.88 meters (5 feet 7 inches to 6 feet 2 inches). Reddish-brown stains on the cloth match the wounds described in the Bible about the crucifixion of Jesus.

The shroud was damaged in a fire in 1532 in a chapel in Chambéry, France. Burn holes and scorched areas on both sides of the linen were caused by contact with molten silver during the fire, which burned through the cloth in some places while it was folded. Fourteen large triangular patches and eight smaller ones were sewn onto the cloth by Poor Clare nuns to fix the damage.

In May 1898, the Italian photographer Secondo Pia was allowed to take photos of the shroud. He captured the first photograph on May 28, 1898. In 1931, another photographer, Giuseppe Enrie, took pictures of the shroud and produced results similar to Pia’s. In 1978, ultraviolet images of the shroud were taken.

History

There are no clear historical records about the Shroud of Turin before the 14th century. Some historians believe a burial cloth, possibly the same Shroud, was owned by the Byzantine emperors but was lost during the Sack of Constantinople in 1204. Although there are many reports of a burial cloth or image of Jesus being honored in different places before the 14th century, there is no proof these refer to the Shroud now in Turin.

In 1353, the village of Lirey in France received a small church built by Geoffroi de Charny, a local knight. Charny died in 1356 during the Battle of Poitiers. Around 1355, Robert de Caillac, the dean of Lirey’s church, began showing a long fabric with an image of Jesus’ injured body in the church. Nicole Oresme, the Bishop of Lisieux, called the Shroud a fake, claiming it was made by clergy to raise money for their churches. In 1390, Bishop Pierre d’Arcis of Troyes wrote a detailed letter to Antipope Clement VII, stating the Shroud was a forgery and that a previous bishop had identified the artist. Clement allowed the church in Lirey to display the Shroud as long as it was clear it was an artistic image, not a true relic.

In 1415, during the Hundred Years’ War, the Shroud was moved from Lirey to Montfort for safety. Marguerite de Charny, Geoffroi’s granddaughter, took the cloth and showed it in other churches, including in Chimay and Mons. She refused to return it to Lirey, leading to legal disputes. In 1453, Marguerite gave the Shroud to Louis, Duke of Savoy. Because she sold it and ignored the rights of Lirey’s clergy, she was excommunicated by the church in 1457.

The Shroud became a symbol of the House of Savoy. By 1466, it was kept in the ducal chapel in Chambéry, the capital of Savoy. In 1506, Pope Julius II declared the Shroud a true relic of Jesus. In 1532, a fire in Chambéry damaged the Shroud when molten silver from a reliquary pierced the cloth, creating holes but not harming the image. Poor Clare nuns later patched the holes. In 1578, Emmanuel Philibert, Duke of Savoy, moved the Shroud to Turin, where it has remained ever since.

Since the late 17th century, the Shroud has been displayed in a chapel designed by Guarino Guarini, connected to Turin’s cathedral and Royal Palace. In 1694, Sebastian Valfrè repaired the Shroud, improving on earlier patches by the Poor Clares. Further repairs were done in 1868 by Princess Maria Clotilde of Savoy. The Shroud was first photographed in 1898 during a public exhibition. It remained the property of the House of Savoy until 1983, when it was given to the Holy See by the will of King Umberto II of Italy.

In 1997, a fire, possibly caused by arson, threatened the Shroud. In 2002, the Holy See restored the Shroud, removing its backing and patches to allow the reverse side to be studied. A faint image of a body was found on the back in 2004. The Shroud was displayed publicly for the 18th time from April to May 2010, with over 2 million visitors.

On Holy Saturday, 30 March 2013, high-definition images of the Shroud were shared online and on television for the first time in 40 years. Roberto Gottardo of Turin’s diocese noted that these images could be viewed on tablets and magnified to show details not visible to the naked eye. Pope Francis encouraged people to view the Shroud with reverence but did not confirm its authenticity.

The Shroud was displayed again in Turin’s cathedral from 19 April to 24 June 2015. No fee was charged, but visitors needed to book appointments.

Conservation

The Shroud has been restored multiple times, and steps have been taken to preserve it and prevent further damage or contamination. It is kept inside a special bulletproof glass case that is airtight. The case maintains controlled temperature and humidity and is filled with argon (99.5%) and oxygen (0.5%) to stop chemical changes. The Shroud is placed on an aluminum support that slides smoothly on runners and is stored flat inside the case. During a 2002 restoration by the Commission for the Conservation of the Shroud, thirty triangular patches and a Holland cloth backing added by nuns in 1534 were removed. This restoration has faced criticism for causing damage to the Shroud.

Religious views

The Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke describe how Joseph of Arimathea wrapped Jesus' body in a "linen cloth," "linen shroud," or "linen" (Greek: sindon) and placed it in a new tomb. The Gospel of John mentions that the body was wrapped in linen cloths (Greek: othonia) along with a large amount of myrrh and aloes.

After Jesus' resurrection, the Gospel of John says that Simon Peter entered the tomb and saw the linen wrappings lying there, along with a cloth that had been on Jesus' head. This cloth was not with the other wrappings but was rolled up separately. The Gospel of Luke states that Peter ran to the tomb, looked inside, and saw the linen cloths by themselves. He then went home, amazed by what had happened.

In 1543, John Calvin wrote in his book Treatise on Relics about why the Shroud of Turin might not be genuine. He explained that Jewish burial customs involved wrapping the body up to the shoulders and binding the head with a separate cloth, called a napkin. Calvin noted that the Evangelist John described the head cloth being in a different place than the body wrappings, which contradicted the idea of a single large cloth covering the whole body. He argued that if the Shroud were real, it would not match the burial practices described in the Gospels.

Relics believed to be burial cloths of Jesus are kept in several churches in France and Italy, but the Shroud of Turin is the most well-known. Religious beliefs about the Shroud date back many years, and it is respected by many Christian traditions, including Baptists, Catholics, Lutherans, Methodists, Greek Orthodox, Pentecostals, and Presbyterians. Some Lutheran churches display replicas of the Shroud for teaching and worship.

The term acheiropoieta (from Greek, meaning "made without hands") refers to religious images believed to have been created miraculously without human involvement. Examples include the Image of Camuliana and the Image of Edessa, which were once important in the Byzantine Empire but are now lost. Other acheiropoieta include images of the Virgin Mary, such as the Hodegetria. In Western Europe, some images, like the Manoppello Image, are also considered acheiropoieta of Jesus and are linked to the tradition of the Veil of Veronica.

The Sudarium of Oviedo, a bloodstained cloth kept in Spain, is believed to have covered Jesus' head after his death. It is not considered an acheiropoieta but is still venerated by some.

Modern devotion to the "Holy Face of Jesus" is often connected to the Shroud of Turin, as seen in photographs taken by Secondo Pia in 1898. However, this devotion began earlier, in 1844, when a nun named Marie of St. Peter created it based on images of Jesus before his crucifixion. A French man named Leo Dupont later promoted the devotion, and Pope Leo XIII approved it in 1885. The French saint Thérèse of Lisieux adopted the name "Thérèse of the Holy Face" in 1889.

In the 20th century, an Italian nun named Maria Pierina De Micheli claimed to have visions of Jesus and designed a "Holy Face Medal" based on Pia's photographs. Pope Pius XII approved the medal for private devotion.

In 1389, the Bishop of Troyes claimed the Shroud was a painted cloth, not a genuine relic. Antipope Clement VII later ordered that the Shroud be displayed but stated it was not the true Shroud of Jesus. Pope Julius II reversed this in 1506, allowing people to venerate the Shroud if they believed it was authentic.

The Vatican newspaper L'Osservatore Romano reported on Pia's 1898 photograph but did not comment on it. The Church avoided official statements about the Shroud for many years.

In 1940, Sister Maria Pierina De Micheli asked the Church in Milan for permission to create a medal based on the Shroud's image. Pope Pius XII approved it, and the medal was used for protection during World War II. In 1958, Pius XII linked the image to the devotion of the "Holy Face of Jesus" and established a yearly celebration called the "Feast of the Holy Winding Sheet of Christ" on Shrove Tuesday.

In 1936, Pope Pius XII called the Shroud a "holy thing perhaps like nothing else." In 1998, Pope John Paul II referred to it as a "distinguished relic" and "a mirror of the Gospel." Pope Benedict XVI later described it as an "icon written with the blood of a whipped man, crowned with thorns, crucified."

Scientific analysis

Sindonology is the study of the Shroud of Turin. The word "sindonology" comes from the Greek word "sindon," which was used in the Gospel of Mark to describe the type of burial cloth used for Jesus. The Oxford English Dictionary first recorded the use of "sindonology" in 1964. It also noted the use of "sindonological" in 1950 and "sindonologist" in 1953.

In 1898, Secondo Pia took photographs of the Shroud, which allowed scientists to begin studying it. Scientists have proposed many theories about the Shroud, using knowledge from fields like chemistry, biology, medical forensics, and image analysis. These studies are grouped into three areas: analyzing the material (including its chemical and historical aspects), studying biology and medical forensics, and analyzing the images on the cloth.

The first scientific team to examine the Shroud directly was between 1969 and 1973. Their goal was to advise on how to preserve the Shroud and decide on testing methods. This led to the creation of an 11-member Turin Commission. Five members were scientists, and in 1973, they began studying fabric samples from the Shroud.

In 1976, physicist John P. Jackson, thermodynamicist Eric Jumper, and photographer William Mottern used image analysis tools from aerospace science to study the Shroud. In 1977, these three scientists and over 30 other experts formed the Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP). In 1978, STURP was given direct access to the Shroud.

Also in 1978, Giovanni Tamburelli used 3D technology at CSELT to create a higher-resolution image of the Shroud than earlier methods. He also removed the apparent blood image from the face electronically.

In October 1978, STURP scientists took 32 samples from the Shroud’s surface using adhesive tape. Eighteen samples were taken from areas with body or blood images, and 14 were from areas without images. Walter McCrone, an expert in analyzing historical documents, studied the samples using polarized light microscopy and other techniques. McCrone concluded that the body image was painted with red ochre (a type of iron oxide) in a gelatin medium, similar to 14th-century art techniques. He also found that the "bloodstains" were made with vermilion (a red pigment made from mercury sulfide), but no actual blood was present in the samples.

Other STURP members disagreed with McCrone’s findings, believing the image could not be explained by pigments. Mark Anderson, who worked with McCrone, later stated that the samples acted like organic material when tested with a laser. McCrone left STURP in 1980 after returning all tape samples to Ray Rogers.

John Heller and Alan Adler also studied the samples and agreed with McCrone that the cloth contained iron oxide. However, they argued that the purity of the chemical and comparisons with other ancient textiles suggested the iron was not the source of the image.

After publishing his findings in 1980, McCrone continued to argue that the Shroud was painted in the 14th century and had no real blood. He claimed STURP members lacked the expertise to analyze historical artworks properly. McCrone was honored with the American Chemical Society’s National Award in Analytical Chemistry in 2000.

Radiocarbon dating has shown the Shroud is medieval, not from the time of Jesus. In 1988, independent tests at the University of Oxford, the University of Arizona, and the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology concluded with 95% confidence that the Shroud dates to AD 1260–1390. This matches the first recorded mention of the Shroud in church history.

Some supporters of the Shroud’s authenticity claimed the sample tested might be from a medieval repair, not the main cloth. However, these claims have been scientifically disproven.

Recent studies have analyzed the radiocarbon data to assess its reliability. These studies found the data lacked uniformity, possibly due to fabric abnormalities or differences in cleaning methods. A 2020 study suggested adjusting results by 10 years from two labs or 88 years from all labs could make the data consistent.

The Shroud has reddish stains that appear to be blood. McCrone argued these were made with iron oxide, a pigment used in medieval times. Skeptics, however, point to forensic tests that suggest the blood might not be real or could belong to someone who handled the Shroud. It has not been proven scientifically that the blood is from a human or primate.

In 2011, Salvatore Lorusso and others studied photographs of the Shroud using modern digital image processing. They found no evidence of flowers, coins, or other objects on the images.

In 2015, Italian researchers Barcaccia et al. published a study in Scientific Reports that examined DNA collected from the Shroud and its backing cloth during vacuuming in 1977 and 1988. They identified traces of 19 different plant species, including those native to Mediterranean countries, Central Europe, North Africa, the Middle East, Eastern Asia (China), and other regions.

Fringe theories

Some people say they have seen images of flowers and coins on the Shroud of Turin, as well as writing and other objects. However, a study from 2011 by Lorusso and others used modern digital image processing on two photographs of the shroud, including a reproduction of a 1931 photo taken by Giuseppe Enrie. They found no clear images of flowers, coins, writing, or other objects in either photograph. They noted that the faint images were only visible when the contrast of the photos was increased. They concluded that these signs might be caused by bumps in the threads of the shroud or by changes in the texture of the Enrie photograph during its development in 1931. Using coins to cover the eyes of the dead was not common in 1st-century Judaea. Most scientists do not believe the coin images exist.

An image in the medieval Pray Codex (c. 1192–1195) has caused debate among some believers since 1978. Although the Pray Codex is older than the Shroud of Turin, some features in the drawing, like four L-shaped holes on a coffin lid, have led some to think it might represent a linen cloth. However, the image in the Pray Codex shows crosses on one side of what may be a shroud and an interlocking step pyramid pattern on the other side, but no image of Jesus. Critics argue the image might not be a shroud at all, but instead a rectangular tombstone, as seen in other religious art. A crumpled cloth is shown on the coffin, and the text of the codex does not mention any miraculous image on the shroud.

Some people who believe the Shroud of Turin is authentic suggest the image was created by radiation at the "moment of resurrection." However, Alan Adler, a member of STURP, said this theory is not widely accepted by scientists because it goes against the laws of physics. He noted that the darkening of the fabric could be caused by exposure to light, and predicted that the shroud will eventually become darker over time, even though it is usually kept in the dark. Raymond Rogers criticized the theory, stating that electric sparks (plasma) in the air would cause visible changes in linen, but no such changes are seen in the shroud’s image fibers. He said electric sparks or plasma did not help form the image. Even if ultraviolet radiation caused the image, it is unclear whether it was natural, like sunlight, applied unevenly to the cloth. Some people have suggested that an earthquake after Jesus’ death might have released neutrons that changed the shroud’s material through neutron capture.