The mystery behind the religious relic, the Shroud of Turin, has cultivated an array of attitudes and views towards it since its existence, making it one of the most debated and controversial topic in the Christian world. Even after extensive scientific research has been conducted on it, the inevitable question of whether the image on the shroud belonged to Jesus Christ remains unresolved.

The Shroud itself is an ivory linen cloth with a herringbone weave. Measuring 14 feet 3 inches long by 3 feet seven inches wide, the cloth itself features a faint shadow-like image of the front as well as the back of a man with a beard and long hair with his hands laid in front of him. Blood stains are also apparent in several areas of the shroud and the material is also disfigured by stains and fire damage caused by its exposure to fire in 1953. The Shroud has also been at hazard from fire in at least two other occasion and was sent to the Poor Clare Nuns for repairs.

The earliest known origins of the shroud was in 1357, in the town of Lirey, where it was believed to be housed in the local Church. The canons of this church, proclaimed it to be the burial cloth of Jesus Christ. Upon hearing these claims, the neighbouring Bishop D’Acris stated in his letters to Pope Clement VII of Avignon how the cloth was, “cunningly painted” and that the canons were, “falsely declaring” and “pretending” that it was Jesus Christs’ Shroud. The rise of fake religious relics as a consequence of the widespread famine and plague across Europe, may have influenced D’Acris opposed view towards the shroud. However, amidst the disastrous, believers still came to witness the shroud. Historian David Gibson affirmed that, “People couldn’t look for anything to protect them...except Jesus...except these relics.”

The next significant event that sparked interest and differing attitudes in the Shroud occurred in 1898. Consent was given to amateur photographer Secondo Pia to take the first photograph of the Shroud. Upon the development of the image, he realised that it was negative, with the lights and the darks reversed from what was usually expected. This discovery suggested they were actual imprints from a real body, not an artistic fraud created by masters such as Giotto and Da Vinci, which was previously theorised. An uproar ensued after Pia’s discovery, with the public accusing him as a fraud and fake. It was only after a second photographer, Guiseppe Enrie conducted a fresh round of Shroud expositions in May 1931, with improved photographic technology which enabled him to take life-sized views of details of the face, crossed hands and chest wounds, did he garner the same result.

Proper scientific research after consent was given from the church on the 8th of October 1978, to scientists to conduct their examination on the Shroud. Scientific experimentation on the shroud was extremely significant as it would determine whether the shroud was a genuine or a fake. However the decision to allow this did not come without opposition , with many believers protesting to leave the shroud alone. The tests conducted had to be non-destructive, therefore they were not allowed to mark or cut the shroud. In the duration of the time given for the observation and study of the shroud, various scientific photographic methods were tried. Scientist, Barrie Schwortz, was able to place photographic lighting, behind the shroud, further revealed that the ‘blood’ stains showed up us dark against the light, indicative that it was a solid, while the rest of the body imprints simply disappeared. Tests conducted earlier, by Italian, Giovanni Riggi, whose experiment, which involving the use of an endoscopic camera system, revealed that their was density present in the stains of the cloth. Schwortz’s UV flourescence photogrography showed that serum stains, the liquid medium of signature red blood cells, were present in the linen. Radiography technicians of the STURP team methodically X-rayed the cloth in plate sections. Previous X-rays of old master paintings, would reveal the paint’s solid, lead base pigments, however, the blood and body imprints alike failed to show on the X-ray plates. From the results conducted during the preliminary experiment, Barrie Schwartz concluded that, “No medieval artist would have anticipated” the technology used to test the shroud, adamantly confirming, that the imprint on the shroud was created with contact from a real body.

The records taken in the duration of the two week experiment, including photographs and samples of parchment and strands from the stained areas, where then utilized for further studies by other scientists, such as Forensic pathologist, Frederick Zugibe, who since, 1948, was investigating whether the evidence on the shroud was consistent of a crucified individual. The areas of blood on the cloth, around the hands and on the side of the body, suggested a crucifixion did occur. However, his further studies showed that that the process of driving nails into the victims hands, ruptured the median nerves, which consequently turned the thumbs inwards, this fact was with the evidence on the shroud- the thumbs were hidden under the palms. Moreover, the apparent bloodstain on the right side of the body, between the fifth and sixth rib was considered to be caused by a spear wound. After undergoing a crucifixion, guards usually speared the victim, “one of the guards pierced him with a lance” (John 19;34) to check that they had died. This was further evidence that the figure was crucified.

These results would have influenced the views, towards the shroud, as the scientific evidence, had so far, authenticized the shroud, and proven it belonged to a crucified man, possibly Jesus of Nazareth. This view, however, was to be contended with when on the 16th of April, 1988, the scientists were given permission to carbon date the shroud. To carbon 14-date the shroud the church selected a small sample from the damaged corner of the shroud for the STURP to use and burn for the tests. To ensure reliability, and avoid error, STURP dividing them up into 4 separate pieces, sending to different labratories, Oxford University, Swiss Institute of Technology, and the University of Arizona, who held two pieces. After conducting, thorough tests, the scientists, determined that the radiocarbon dates of the shroud were in fact between 1260-1390, making it a medieval relic, which meant it could not have been the shroud of Jesus Christ. 
 However, there were still some people who denied the carbon dating results, in particular, an american couple, Sue Benford, and Joe Marino who questioned the veracity of the dates in accordance to their own scientific research and findings. Although neither of them were professional scientists, they thoroughly checked the images taken of the shroud and found a remarkable clue. No where in the UV photographs of the shroud was there a definitive dark green non-fluroscent area, other than the area where the sample was taken from. The herringbone pattern, that is so consistent throughout the cloth, was not in the sample chosen for the carbon dating, the pattern was obviously misaligned. Their theory for the flawed date was because the first century linen, had been contaminated with sixteenth century cotton which was dyed, when it was being repaired. To prove their theory, they anonymously sent the picture of the sample to three textiles industries, with all three agreeing that the cloth had been rewoven. Benford and Merino, understood that the mixture of these two materials would produce a date in between the first and 16th century. The release of Benford and Merino’s paper, sparked anger throughout the scientific community, with many of them dismissing Benford and Merino’s finds. One of the scientist who was part of the STURP body, Ray Rogers was one of them. He had, in his power, to authenticate or break the Benford and Merino theory, as he possessed tape samples of fibrals taken from the area adjacent to the sample. Sure enough, after thorough microscopic studies, Rogers found cotten interwoven in the fibrals . Moreover, he discovered that there were areas that he had not noticed before that were “heavily coated with gum dye”. He published his scientific paper in April 2005, not casting doubt on the scientific process, rather, the selection of a contiminated sample which flawed the results. His paper, was the only peer reviewed one that challenges the carbon dates with anything credible during this point in time. He further examined the composition of the threads by sending them to specialists in Los Alamos laboratory. There, it was confirmed that the threads were made up of 2 strings of cotton and linen, thus supporting the theory that the carbon dating samples were poorly chosen, as Rogers, Benford and Merino suggested. This once again, altered peoples view towards the shroud,

Although, the conditioning of the box with thymel, may influence results of samples in the future, the charred areas from the fire damage, possess pure carbon where scientists could potentially carbon date the areas successfully. Samples were taken from these areas, but permission from the church for a second dating is yet to be granted.

The conclusions made shaped the common perceptions people had towards the shroud. Since the scientists could prove that the shroud belonged to that of a man, and that he was crucified, it lead to more people believing it was the burial cloth of Jesus of Nazareth.