The ENEA Report story is now very widespread (and in so many papers and blogs so inaccurately reported). The best, most accurate reporting so far seems to be from Ileana Llorens in The Huffington Post. The story is entitled, Shroud Of Turin, Jesus’ Proposed Burial Cloth, Is Authentic, Italian Study Suggests:
A series of experiments conducted by Italian researchers indicate the Shroud of Turin is likely authentic, but the team has not yet reached a definite conclusion.
Decades of research on Jesus’ proposed burial cloth have revealed an array of conflicting ideas surrounding the shroud’s authenticity. However, researchers from Italy’s National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and Sustainable Economic Development believe their findings undermine previous theories that the shroud was faked in the medieval period, the Telegraph reports. The new claim seems to again be stirring controversy, as many point to previous research to the contrary.
Last year scientists were able to replicate marks on the cloth using highly advanced ultraviolet techniques that weren’t available 2,000 years ago — nor during the medieval times, for that matter.
Research in the 1980s suggests the image was "forged" on the cloth between 1260 and 1390, but scientists have determined the hypothesis was based on testing material from a patch likely used to to repair the cloth after a fire, the BBC reports.
Since the shroud and "all its facets" still cannot be replicated using today’s top-notch technology, researchers suggest it is impossible that the original image could have been created in either period.
However, scientists are willing to point out the flaw in their findings. The Vatican Insider reports:
This inability to repeat (and therefore falsify) the image on the Shroud makes it impossible to formulate a reliable hypothesis on how the impression was made.
The bold emphasis is mine. This is so important. Too many of the stories simply jump to a conclusion that isn’t there.