Shroud of Turin: New Study Refutes Medieval Origin Hypothesis

Turin, Italy – February 10, 2026 – A decades-long debate surrounding the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin has intensified with the publication of a scientific rebuttal challenging a recent claim that the relic is a medieval forgery. The response, published in the peer-reviewed journal Archaeometry, directly addresses a study by Brazilian researcher Cicero Moraes which proposed the image on the shroud could have been created using a bas-relief technique.

The rebuttal comes from Tristan Casabianca, Emanuela Marinelli, and Alessandro Piana, specialists in the study of the Shroud. They argue that Moraes’s research suffers from “ambiguous objectives, methodological flaws, and faulty reasoning,” echoing earlier criticisms voiced by Cardinal Roberto Repole, the Archbishop of Turin and custodian of the Shroud, and the International Center for Shroud Studies of Turin (CISS).

The significance of this critique lies in its publication within the same journal that initially featured Moraes’s hypothesis last summer. This academic back-and-forth underscores the ongoing and often contentious nature of the research surrounding the Shroud, a linen cloth bearing a faint image believed by some to be the burial shroud of Jesus Christ.

The debate over the Shroud’s origins dates back to 1898, when photographer Secondo Pia captured the first photograph of the cloth. Since then, numerous scientific investigations have attempted to determine its age and method of creation. A 1989 carbon-14 dating analysis, published in Nature, placed the Shroud’s origins between 1260 and 1390 AD, suggesting a medieval origin. However, this dating has been challenged by subsequent research, including a re-analysis of the raw data also published in Archaeometry in 2019.

Moraes’s recent study, published in the same journal, argued that the image on the Shroud could have been formed by pressing fabric against a low-relief sculpture. He contrasted how fabric would drape over a living person versus a sculpture with shallow, raised areas, concluding that the impression from a carved relief more closely matched the image on the Shroud. However, Casabianca, Marinelli, and Piana contend that Moraes’s modeling was flawed, lacking anatomical accuracy and failing to account for key characteristics of the Shroud itself.

Specifically, the specialists criticize Moraes’s model for reproducing only a frontal image, incorrectly reversing left-right orientation of the feet and hands, and arbitrarily choosing a height of 180 cm – a figure outside the generally accepted range of 173–177 cm. They also point to the use of vague terminology and a lack of precise measurements to support claims of similarity. Moraes’s model was created using cotton, not linen, the material of the actual Shroud.

Perhaps more critically, the researchers argue that Moraes’s 3D modeling neglected crucial properties of the Shroud, including the extreme superficiality of the image – a depth of only one-fifth of a millimeter – and the confirmed presence of bloodstains, which are inconsistent with medieval artistic practices. They question the purpose of a model that fails to accurately reproduce the anatomical features of the figure depicted on the Shroud and ignores its key physical and chemical properties.

The critique also challenges the historical basis of Moraes’s argument, suggesting that his attempts to identify potential artistic influences are based on tenuous connections between disparate times and locations. The specialists argue that the image on the Shroud is so distinct from traditional artistic styles that even the historian Moraes cites, William S. A. Dale, believed it could not have been created in 14th-century France, but rather in the Byzantine era, centuries earlier and thousands of kilometers away.

In a response also published in Archaeometry, Moraes maintains his conclusions, characterizing his work as a “strictly methodological” evaluation of morphological deformation when a body is projected onto fabric. However, the specialists note that Moraes extends beyond this methodological framework to suggest potential artistic inspirations for the Shroud’s creator, none of which depict a naked, post-crucifixion Christ, thus failing to explain the image’s unique characteristics.

The ongoing debate highlights the complexities of studying an artifact with such deep religious and historical significance. While modern tools and digital techniques can contribute to our understanding, the specialists emphasize the need for rigorous methodology and historical accuracy when attempting to determine the origins of an object as singular as the Shroud of Turin. The controversy serves as a reminder that definitive answers regarding the Shroud’s authenticity remain elusive, and further research is needed to unravel its mysteries.