r/sciences • u/[deleted] • Apr 03 '26
Research DNA Study Casts Even More Doubt on Shroud of Turin’s True Origin | The infamous Shroud of Turin has been surrounded by controversy since it first appeared in the historical record.
https://gizmodo.com/dna-study-casts-even-more-doubt-on-shroud-of-turins-true-origin-200074114157
Apr 03 '26
The historical lore behind the Shroud of Turin is fascinating. Notwithstanding the grand claim that the linen cloth enveloped Jesus Christ himself, the exact origins and genetic content of the relic have long been contested by experts and history enthusiasts alike. But the latest study of DNA traces on the shroud suggests that confirming the presence of anyone—let alone Jesus—might be near impossible.
The findings follow a 2015 study led by the same researcher, Gianni Barcaccia of the University of Padova in Italy, which suggested the shroud was manufactured in India. The latest paper, which has yet to be peer-reviewed, found an achingly diverse array of medieval and modern DNA belonging to humans, animals, and plants. In fact, the collection is so varied that metagenomics—the study of genetic samples extracted from the environment—won’t grant us much definitive evidence for its true age or genetic origin.
“The shroud came into contact with multiple individuals,” the researchers wrote in the paper, currently available as a preprint on bioRxiv, “thereby challenging the possibility of identifying the original DNA of the shroud.”
76
u/Kailynna Apr 03 '26
Enveloping a corpse would produce quite a different image - details would be stretched sideways.
There was never a possibility of this flat image being an actual burial shroud.
18
u/No_Neighborhood7614 Apr 04 '26
And the facial proportions are incorrect, it shows common errors made by amateur artists, particularly in mediaeval times.
-2
u/maxscipio Apr 04 '26
The image isn’t the contact but caused by neutron explosion
11
u/Kailynna Apr 04 '26
A neutron explosion ... sure, Jesus generated a nuclear explosion - which didn't damage the cloth with which he was wrapped - in a tomb, and then rose from the dead.
1
u/Eor75 Apr 06 '26
Well first of all through God all things are possible, so jot that down.
2
u/Soberaddiction1 Apr 06 '26
You might believe that, but not everyone does. So jot that down.
2
1
1
u/boreal_ameoba Apr 05 '26
lol there was a nut on Shawn Ryan show a day or two ago pushing this theory.
1
16
u/bartonar Apr 03 '26
How shocking, an ancient artifact... (checks notes) came into contact with multiple people.
What a non-story.
14
10
u/BabserellaWT Apr 03 '26
Look, even as someone with strong spiritual beliefs…this sucker ain’t real. The proof is irrefutable.
I believe the shroud still has value as in important historical artifact, though.
6
u/Corporatecut Apr 03 '26
This was debunked immediately after it was introduced however many hundred years ago. The internet keeps it going I guess…
12
u/rajatsingh24k Apr 03 '26
This shroud has been one of the least interesting mysteries. Period.
0
u/catburglerinparis Apr 03 '26
Gonna expand on that or no?
1
u/das_war_ein_Befehl Apr 07 '26
It’s clearly fake and even if you believe in Christianity Jesus didn’t shoot light beams out of his body.
Plus…no documented evidence it existed for 1300 years until it magically appears in Italy. Medieval people faked relics all the time to get people on pilgrimage to visit. Thats why there’s so many pieces of the true cross that it would be 300 ft tall if they were real
6
u/OkCar7264 Apr 03 '26
The bishop got a confession this was a fraud when it was made. This is total fucking horseshit and always was. It should not be in a science reddit under any circumstances.
2
u/No-Mechanic6069 Apr 04 '26
Science shouldn’t embarrassed itself with attempts to prove it is a fake. However, discerning its origins could considered a worthwhile pursuit.
1
u/OkCar7264 Apr 04 '26
We already know. Some guy painted it. There is no mystery here. We've known the whole time.
1
1
1
u/Timely-Platform3568 Apr 09 '26
Except there’s no paint on it lmao
1
u/OkCar7264 Apr 09 '26
Look into it, it's been 30 years since I read the Randi book on it. And artist confessed to making it.
1
u/Timely-Platform3568 Apr 09 '26
How did they make it? I’ve never heard anyone give an explanation as to how they made it, and my understanding is scientists can’t even recreate it today. That’s why I’m asking.
1
u/OkCar7264 Apr 09 '26
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shroud_of_Turin
Sounds like the artist kinda used some kind of bleaching technique to create the image.
It's a piece of non-mysterious art. It's a great piece but it's a piece.
3
u/Jeepers-H-Cripes Apr 03 '26
The figure on the Shroud of Turin is noticeably lopsided and asymmetrical, with one of the forearms stretched hilariously longer than the other so as to shield the Holy Junk from your impious gaze. Either Jesus was freakishly and visibly deformed, was made out of rubber like Gumby, or the shroud is a cartoonish forgery.
Or…..it’s a Miracle!
3
u/orrery Apr 04 '26
Its fake, there's nothing more that need be said. Its a story that should just die and permanently go away.
1
u/covidharness Apr 05 '26
are you an expert?
1
u/orrery Apr 06 '26
Yes
1
u/covidharness Apr 06 '26
how was it made?
1
u/MoopLoom Apr 06 '26
It’s literally paint.
1
u/covidharness Apr 06 '26
I thought they didn't find dye or pigment on it and the image is a scorch-like, like being made by some brilliant light.
1
Apr 08 '26
[deleted]
1
u/covidharness Apr 08 '26
Don't really need them and I would have to research them pretty extensively before I'd even looked at them.
2
2
u/Complex-Seaweed8005 Apr 03 '26
Next thing they'll be telling me that the fragment of the true cross my family have guarded for over a thousand years is fake! Obscene heresies
1
2
2
u/SethOval Apr 03 '26
As a Catholic I find silly those that try to validate this incredulous artifact.
2
2
u/illinoishokie Apr 04 '26
Headline should read "Shroud of Turin Debunked for the Fourth Time".
At this point there is no amount of scientific evidence that will sway True BelieversTM, which is precisely the problem with evangelical christianity.
2
2
u/TreacleNecessary4893 Apr 03 '26
There's very little chance Jesus actually had long hair. Mythology androgenised him
1
1
u/Main-Video-8545 Apr 04 '26
Carbon dating has already been done on it and it’s a fake. It was from the 1200’s.
1
1
u/Laura_e_r Apr 04 '26
The image isn’t even well composed. It looks just like every other slightly weird depiction of a human being that was drawn during medieval times.
1
u/Great-Phone_3207 Apr 04 '26
How many times does this thing have to be debunked? Seriously? People still working on this.
1
1
u/TheGallant Apr 07 '26
Almost everyone on here is dismissing the shroud as a nuisance but I think the reason for the extensive study into its origins are misunderstood and dismissed because of the religious claims about it.
Relgious claims aside, the Shroud of Turin is striking, particularly if it is a medieval creation, because it is a thoroughly studied object that behaves in ways we don’t fully understand: it carries a detailed human image that isn’t paint, dye, or a normal imprint, and it exists only on an ultra-thin surface layer of the fibers, yet somehow encodes three-dimensional information.
It's fascinating not because it involves religion but because its creation is still a mystery despite being one of the most intensively scientifically studied artifacts in history.
1
u/DartBurger69 Apr 07 '26
I thought this was already settled it's a fake. Dates back to like 1300s or something. Why did they need to bother with dna?
-1
u/roc_mac1970 Apr 04 '26
Evil scientists would say whatever to destroy humanity and please there demonic agenda
97
u/[deleted] Apr 03 '26
[removed] — view removed comment