First read: 12 Reasons to Disbelieve by Hugh Farey
For more than a century, the Shroud of Turin has fascinated scientists, theologians, skeptics, and the spiritually curious. It has inspired the founding of research teams, drawn crowds to conferences, and generated an extraordinary volume of scientific papers, devotional literature, and sometimes far-fetched speculation. Yet today, the intense scientific energy that once surrounded the Shroud is unmistakably fading. Conferences are smaller. The subject attracts few new scientists. Institutional support is nearly gone. And the field, once lively with debate, feels increasingly like an echo chamber.
The reasons for this waning are many, but one of the deepest lies in a paradox at the very center of Shroud research — a paradox most observers have not yet named: even if the Shroud could be securely dated to the time of Christ, the most plausible understanding of the cloth robs the Shroud of its long-imagined role as a scientific witness to the Resurrection.
This essay explores both truths: first, the unmistakable decline of Shroud studies, and second, the emerging bier-cloth interpretation that, ironically, explains the Shroud more convincingly while simultaneously ending the quest for scientific proof of Christianity’s central miracle.
Part I — The Waning of Shroud Studies
1. The Shrinking Scientific Community
During the 1970s through early 2000s, the Shroud attracted a remarkable ensemble of chemists, physicists, forensic pathologists, textile experts, and engineers. The STURP team brought together specialists from national labs, aerospace contractors, and leading universities. The radiocarbon dating controversy attracted world-class physicists and statisticians. Academic journals occasionally printed Shroud-relevant papers.
Today, that era is over.
- No major university labs are conducting Shroud research.
- Almost all the original researchers have died or retired.
- There is no “new generation” entering the field.
- The few remaining researchers are almost entirely enthusiasts working outside scientific institutions.
The field has become effectively unfunded and institutionally orphaned.
2. Conferences: Older and More Devotional
Shroud conferences once drew international attention and genuine scholarly participation. Compare:
- 1978–1998: conferences with active scientists, energetic debate.
- 2005 Dallas and 2014 St. Louis: still substantial scientific presence.
- 2024–2025 gatherings: largely devotional, dominated by repeat presenters, with little new science.
The demographic shift is striking. Most attendees today are in their 60s, 70s, or 80s. Younger scientists are simply not joining the conversation.
3. Institutional Retreat and Lack of New Data
The Vatican has no current plans to allow new sampling or testing. Laboratories do not pursue Shroud proposals. Museums approach the cloth as a fragile relic, not a research object. Without new data, meaningful scientific progress is nearly impossible.
As a result, Shroud studies today rely heavily on:
- reanalysis of decades-old STURP data
- debates about the 1988 carbon dating
- speculative image-formation theories involving radiation, earthquakes, neutrons, or exotic physics
- online apologetics ministries seeking “proof” for faith
But no new evidence is emerging.
4. The Shift from Science to Advocacy
Much of the activity now takes place on YouTube, private websites, and Facebook groups. This shift toward devotional advocacy discourages serious researchers. The once-healthy tension between skeptics and proponents has largely disappeared; only a few critical voices remain, with Hugh Farey standing almost alone in sustained, careful skepticism.
Scientific debate has been replaced by advocacy — and advocacy is not a research program.
5. The Unspoken Cause: The Loss of a Central Motive
The field’s decline cannot be explained only by aging researchers or lack of access. Something more fundamental is at work: the realization that even if the Shroud is authentic, it cannot provide the scientific proof many hoped for.
And this is where Part II begins.
Part II — The Bier-Cloth Hypothesis and the Quiet Death of the “Proof” Motive
For decades, much of the energy behind Shroud research — especially in popular circles — has been driven by an apologetic motive: the hope that the Shroud contains physical evidence of the Resurrection. Some have imagined the image as a photographic burst from a supernatural event. Others speculated about radiation, ultraviolet lasers, neutron emissions, or unknown energetic processes occurring at the instant Jesus rose from the dead.
The Shroud, in this imagination, was not merely a relic. It was a laboratory window into a miracle.
But a very different and more historically plausible picture has been emerging: the Shroud as a bier cloth — the linen placed over or under a body during transport from the place of death to a burial chamber.
1. The Historical Fit
In first-century Judea, especially under the pressured timing of an approaching Sabbath, a temporary transport cloth would have been entirely normal. A crucified body removed from a cross required handling and covering. A separate burial wrapping — the traditional shroud — would have been applied later in the tomb.
This aligns with:
- Jewish burial customs
- Roman crucifixion practices
- The Gospel timeline
- The allowances and constraints of the Sabbath
- Archaeological parallels from the period
A bier cloth explains why blood appears before the image, why the image is superficial, and why chemical processes would have been active during the interval between removal from the cross and entombment.
2. Natural Chemistry, Not Supernatural Mechanism
Under this view, the image need not be miraculous at all. A combination of body heat, perspiration, post-mortem diffusion, enzymatic reactions, humidity, and contact with linen could produce a faint, superficial image — especially if the linen were of high quality and relatively new.
A natural image does not threaten faith. It simply reflects what happens when biology and environment interact. And it fits the objective data far better than any radiation hypothesis ever proposed.
3. A Natural Image Cannot Prove the Resurrection
Here lies the irony:
The more plausible the Shroud becomes, the less capable it becomes of proving the Resurrection.
For if the cloth covers Jesus only before burial — during the transport stage — then:
- the image reflects a corpse, not a transformation
- the cloth bears witness to death, not glory
- no mechanism of Resurrection can be inferred
- no burst of divine energy can be claimed
- the Shroud cannot function as a scientific artifact of a metaphysical event
Dating the cloth to the first century would be historically fascinating but theologically neutral.
The Resurrection remains, as Christianity has always insisted, an act of God known through witness and transformation — not through measurable radiation or forensic imprint.
4. The Quiet Collapse of the Old Motive
Once this is seen, a long-hidden truth becomes clear:
The central motive driving much of Shroud science for the last fifty years — the hope of proving the Resurrection — collapses under the weight of the bier-cloth hypothesis.
The field loses the one thing that kept it perpetually energized: the dream of empirical confirmation.
And with that loss, the fading of scientific interest becomes inevitable.
5. A More Mature Understanding Emerges
None of this diminishes the Shroud’s significance.
If authentic, the Shroud is:
- a poignant artifact of Jesus’ death
- a rare physical witness to the brutality of crucifixion
- an emotionally powerful relic of the earliest Christian moment
- a human link to the Passion narrative
The bier-cloth hypothesis gives us history, not physics; pathos, not proof.
It brings the Shroud back into the world of ordinary human handling, Jewish custom, and the sorrow of hurried burial.
And Christian faith, freed from the burden of producing laboratory evidence, can breathe again. It no longer needs the Shroud to do what faith never required.
Conclusion — When a Field Matures by Letting Go
The waning of Shroud studies is not a tragedy. It is a kind of maturation. The scientific field is shrinking because its most ambitious promise — to capture a miracle in data — has quietly evaporated.
The bier-cloth hypothesis does not defeat Christian belief.
Nor does it defeat the Shroud’s authenticity.
Instead, it restores both to their proper places:
- The Shroud as a historical and devotional artifact of profound interest.
- The Resurrection as a divine mystery known in encounter and transformation, not in measurable residues.
When the dream of proving the Resurrection fades, what remains is better — an artifact that speaks to history, and a faith that speaks to the heart.
Hi, Dan,
I wish that I had time to respond and refute (point-by-point) many of the various things that you have mentioned, but, unfortunately, I am pressed for time. But, I have to make time to at least make these comments.
You talk about “faith that speaks to the heart.” This is so dangerous–as this opens up the door to anything becoming our god and our religion. This invites false gods and false religions so long as certain ideas “speak to our heart.” No, no, no, Dan. We must pursue that which is True and that which is Real. And, if there is nothing of substance to cause us to think that an idea is real, then why should thinking, sane people believe it–particularly when certain religions (like Christianity) cause humans to behave in a way that is against many of our natural wants and desires?
There is no fading of the dream to prove Jesus’ Resurrection to a high degree of confidence. Moreover, this is not a dream. It has been a reality since around 1980. To those who want to disbelieve in something, there will always be some argument that can be made to enable disbelief (and this argument might be rational or irrational.) But, there’s always a way to get around an argument. If one researches just about any topic deeply enough, one will find competing hypotheses and experts who disagree. This is the nature of things–not just with the Shroud, but with just about everything. But, this does not mean that we can never have a strong reason to rationally believe that certain things are True.
We can, indeed, do this with many things, and, very fortunately, the Shroud is one of those things.
Also, there is a simple reason for why there was a lot more scientific activity concerning Shroud matters decades ago. There was a flurry of work and analysis that had to be done by so many people to figure out what the situation was with the various tests, analyses and evidence that the STURP team collected. Well, that has been done, and I thank God for that! Now, we are really just “gilding the lily.” We don’t need a single piece of additional evidence in order for the body of evidence supporting the Shroud’s authenticity to be rock-solid. And, sure, even a rock is not truly “solid” when one breaks things down enough–and that is what skeptics try to do–to be too smart by half. Yet, they end up missing the big, glorious, all-important picture.
Even the best apologetical arguments for the Christian God’s existence cannot hold a candle to the power of merging Old Testament Prophecies, extra-Biblical evidence, various pieces of information from the New Testament (with special emphasis on the 4 Gospels) with the scientific evidence concerning the Shroud’s acheiropoeita status and why that is.
So, no, the dream is not fading. Instead, it is a reality in the here and now, and it is a reality that should be excitedly embraced, because it is so satisfying to be able to have such great confidence in the existence of God and Heaven. If I were left with nothing but Faith–and no other evidence–then I’m not really sure where I would be. If one just believes anything without cause, then that is the definition of a “sucker,” right? God has never asked us to be this way–this is why He had Jesus perform miracles and why miracles continue to be performed by God. He gives us evidence so that we can trust in Him with our hearts and minds.
All the best,
Teddi
Hi Teddi. Thanks, as always.
I think your expressed concern arises from a misunderstanding of what I meant by “faith that speaks to the heart.” Let me try to clarify, because I’m not talking about emotion-based belief or anything subjective or sentimental.
When modern people hear the word “heart,” they often think of emotions and feelings. But in Scripture and in the entire Christian tradition — both Eastern and Western — the heart means something much deeper. Biblically, the heart is not the place of emotion alone; it is the seat of the whole person. It is where we think, discern, will, remember, choose, and encounter God. In Hebrew (lev) and Greek (kardia), the heart is the inner center of the human being — the place where reason, conscience, will, and spiritual perception come together.
When Paul says, “With the heart one believes unto righteousness,” he is not saying faith is emotional. When Jesus says to love God with all your heart, He doesn’t mean sentimentality. The early Fathers, the monks, Augustine, Aquinas, the Eastern hesychast tradition, Ignatius, Wesley, and countless Christian thinkers all understand faith in this same way: the heart is where truth becomes lived and not merely known intellectually.
So when I say “faith that speaks to the heart,” I’m using that ancient Christian meaning — faith that addresses the whole person, not just one’s intellect. The heart in this sense is not the place where anything “that feels good” can become a religion. It is the place where truth is recognized, where the intellect is moved by grace, and where encounter with God becomes real. Nothing about this threatens doctrinal truth or encourages false gods.
In fact, the Church has always taught that the heart and the mind must work together. Reason searches for truth; the heart recognizes truth personally and inwardly. Christianity has never been a religion of emotion, but neither has it been a purely intellectual system. If it were, no one would ever be transformed by it.
I completely agree with you that we should pursue what is True and Real, and that faith must never be grounded in mere feeling. But the historic Christian understanding of the heart is not about feelings at all. It is about the deepest core of our personhood — the place where truth, will, and conscience meet, and where God’s grace does its work.
So I am not suggesting that whatever “speaks to our heart” becomes our religion. I am saying something much older and much more Christian: that genuine faith reaches the whole human person, mind and heart together, just as the Church has always taught.
Thank you again for raising the question. I hope this helps clarify what I meant.
Hi, Dan,
That is a truly beautiful reply. Thank you for that, and I agree with almost all of what you said. But, I’m not sure that I agree with you that sentimentality is not what is being meant with regard to loving God with all of our heart. Perhaps in this (with all of the other things you mentioned already in place), this should be sentimentality in its extremest form—a blinding love that has the strength and form of the martyrs, and the tenderness of a mother gazing into the eyes of her newly born child.
When I look at the Holy Face on the Holy Shroud, it is the latter which I feel. It is a connection that is created without the necessity of an umbilical cord, but one that, nonetheless, provides an important sustenance to the heart and mind.
All he best,
Teddi
Hello Dan and Teddi!
Regarding faith and reason, I think the best description I found on the back cover of the book ‘Pierwsi apologeci greccy’ (‘The first greek apologists’: a collection of texts of 2nd century apologists, Quadratus, Tatian, Justin Martyr, Aristides, Theophilus of Antioch etc. see cover: https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSTHMgxt5AnKOueQD7w_55sSION8XR5xNOHmSnKt_euHP0Oiwxz , translated by Leszek misiarczyk, a priest and professor of theology):
Najważniejsze i chyba najbardziej aktualne dla nas dzisiaj pozostają dwa elementy apologetyki wczesnochrześcijańskiej II wieku. Po pierwsze, zachęta do szukania możliwego punktu spotkania aspiracji człowieka danej epoki z przesłaniem Ewangelii oraz wynikająca z tego konieczność ciągłego przekładania owego pierwotnego, ewangelicznego doświadczenia wiary na nowy język następujących po sobie epok. Po drugie zaś, apologeci greccy II wieku zachęcają nas do takiej prezentacji wiary chrześcijańskiej, by była ona ciągłą fides quaerens intellectum, ale też wiarą wciąż otwartą na tajemnicę. Ważne jest, by wiara chrześcijańska była podbudowana racjonalnie i poszukująca zrozumienia, lecz jednocześnie niestarająca się zawłaszczyć
rozumem tajemnicy. Apologeci uczą nas,byśmy nie wpadali w sidła racjonalizmu i fideizmu — dwóch największych pokus człowieka: pysznej wiary tylko w rozum albo całkowitego zwątpienia w jego zdolności.
Translation:
The most important—and perhaps the most relevant for us today—are two elements of second-century early Christian apologetics. First, there is the encouragement to seek possible points of contact between the aspirations of the people of a given era and the message of the Gospel, as well as the resulting need to continually translate that original, evangelical experience of faith into the new language of each succeeding age. Second, the Greek apologists of the second century urge us to present the Christian faith in such a way that it remains a continuous fides quaerens intellectum—a faith seeking understanding—yet one that is always open to mystery. It is important that Christian faith be rationally grounded and searching for understanding, while at the same time not attempting to claim the mystery through reason. The apologists teach us to avoid falling into the traps of rationalism and fideism—the two greatest temptations of the human being: the prideful belief only in reason, or the complete doubt in reason’s capacities.
BTW, Teddi I sent you an e-mail on your gmail account.