A three-page, must-read, from Joseph S. Accetta, STURP Emeritus, just floated in from the cloud: A Commentary on the C14 Dating of the Shroud

Before addressing the C14 issue it might be worthwhile to inquire as to why the Shroud was subjected to scientific scrutiny in the first place. Was it to establish some sort of bridge across the great abyss of science and religion? Was it to render a scientific justification for religious belief and to allay the general skepticism of the scientific establishment? The 1978 STRP expedition was organized by a couple of devout Catholics and given a bad rap because somewhere along the way what was rendered as an opinion by some STRUP members became interpreted as a collective scientific conclusion. This had no basis in fact as reflected in the general skeptical or even hostile attitude by some members of the scientific community. After all if the Shroud was authentic would it underscore the resurrection of Christ which is one of the fundamental tenets of the Christian religion? But isn’t all of this a matter of belief and faith anyway? What if it were authentic, how does that change things? I would propose that its significance depends on which particular religious group one embraces ranging from Catholics who may venerate the cloth to Baptists who already know everything and may totally ignore it. The bottom line is the Shroud is not an article of faith no matter what the authenticity outcome might be. At best it would underscore what is already a matter of faith long since firmly embedded in Christian beliefs. That it would change the general skeptical outlook by the scientific community is unlikely

Accetta, J. S. (2023). A Commentary on the C14 Dating of the Shroud. Retrieved from https://www.academia.edu/100120646

And this, which is so true:

If you are looking to science to establish what you already believe then you are going to have to play by its rules like it or not.