Rosa Rubicondior: Turin 'Shroud' - DNA Study Does NOT Authenticate The Cloth's Origins

The 'shroud' as displayed in Turin Cathedral

New DNA research sheds light on the biological history of the Shroud of Turin

I can almost guarantee that fundamentalist Christians will misrepresent this scientific study of DNA found on the so-called 'Shroud of Turin', as proof of its authenticity, so this blog sets out the refutation of that claim based on the research paper itself and the Lancaster University news release. Creationist frauds normally rely on two characteristics of their target dupes: their eagerness to accept any evidence that confirms their bias and their reluctance to check the sources.

Finding human DNA on a cloth that people have handled for centuries is hardly a revelation. Identifying whose DNA it is, and how it came to be there, is a scientific question. Turning that discovery into proof that the cloth once covered Jesus of Nazareth would require evidence of an altogether different kind. That distinction matters when reading the study published in Scientific Reports.

The researchers investigated biological traces in samples collected in 1978. They found a mixture of human, microbial, plant and animal DNA. Particularly instructive is a predominant human mitochondrial lineage matching that of the sample collector, Pierluigi Baima Bollone. This is evidence of handling and contamination, not the identification of a first-century occupant of a tomb.

Nor does a genetic lineage found in present-day Middle Eastern populations establish that the cloth came from first-century Palestine. People travel; objects circulate; biological material can arrive long after an object was manufactured. The geographical distribution of a lineage cannot tell us when its DNA reached a piece of linen. Still less can it supply the name of the person who deposited it.

The authors explicitly conclude that their metagenomic analysis cannot determine the shroud's age or distinguish a medieval origin from a history extending back two millennia. Any claim that this study has authenticated the burial cloth of Jesus would therefore go beyond its findings. The scientific interest lies in what these methods reveal about an object's biological history, not in a demonstration of Christian doctrine.

Meanwhile, the central problems for authenticity remain: no securely documented provenance connecting this cloth to first-century Judaea, a reliable historical trail beginning in medieval France, and radiocarbon measurements placing the sampled linen in the Middle Ages. If apologists present this research as scientific confirmation of the resurrection, the appropriate response is simple: where, precisely, does the paper demonstrate that? Recovering DNA is an analytical achievement. Converting it into a certificate of authenticity is an act of faith.

The Turin Shroud^ why authenticity remains unsubstantiated. Several distinct claims are often bundled together: that the cloth is ancient, that it came from Judaea, that it wrapped a crucified man, that the man was Jesus, and that its image records a resurrection. Evidence for one would not automatically establish the others. The strongest objections concern dating and provenance; other points explain why frequently cited features do not authenticate the relic.

No secure provenance back to first-century Palestine. There is no demonstrated chain of custody connecting the Turin cloth to Jesus's burial. Its securely identifiable history begins in fourteenth-century France, at Lirey. Proposed connections with earlier relics require proof that those objects were this particular cloth; resemblance and tradition cannot establish that identity.

The direct radiocarbon evidence is medieval. Tests carried out in 1988 by laboratories in Arizona, Oxford and Zurich produced a published calibrated range of 1260–1390 CE, at at least 95% confidence. These were measurements of the linen, not estimates based on the image's appearance. The results were published in Nature in 1989.

Sampling limitations do not establish a first-century date. The three laboratories tested material from one sampling area, rather than widely separated parts of the cloth. That is a legitimate limitation, and statistical questions deserve examination. But questioning a measurement does not produce a replacement date, much less identify a historical owner.

The repair explanation is disputed by direct textile examination. A 2026 study of two retained Arizona fragments reported that they were consistent with the main shroud textile and found no evidence of contamination in the examined fragments. This weighs against the claim that the medieval result simply came from an unrepresentative repair. Its scope should also be respected: it examined two fragments, not every part of the cloth.

Medieval doubts were already explicit. In his memorandum of about 1389, Bishop Pierre d'Arcis reported that an earlier investigation had exposed the image as human workmanship. This is a historical allegation, not a surviving laboratory demonstration or an artist's independently preserved confession. Nevertheless, it shows that doubts about authenticity arose close to the cloth's first documented exhibitions, not merely among modern sceptics.

Another early source describes a fraud. Historian Nicolas Sarzeaud's 2025 study identified a reference in a work by Nicole Oresme, dated between 1355 and 1382, treating the shroud as an example of clerical deception. Contemporary criticism does not settle every technical question, but it is important historical evidence against an uncomplicated story of an accepted ancient relic.

DNA deposits are not a dated itinerary. A lineage's modern distribution cannot establish where a cloth was woven or when somebody touched it. The 2026 DNA study identifies a mixture of biological contributions, including modern handling. Selecting a supposedly favourable lineage from that mixture cannot supply the missing provenance.

Dating repair threads does not date the original cloth. The same study dated two separate threads from the reliquary, interpreting them as consistent with repairs in 1534 and 1694. That does not demonstrate that the 1988 radiocarbon samples were repair material, or establish the age of the main cloth.

An image compatible with a crucifixion is not a personal identification. Even convincing evidence of contact with a crucified person would not identify Jesus. An image depicting wounds familiar from Christian narratives could also reflect those narratives. The conclusion requires evidence independent of the resemblance.

An unexplained image is not evidence of a miracle. Uncertainty about the precise image-making process does not establish resurrection. A 2025 digital modelling study favoured a low-relief source over a direct body imprint, but its interpretation has been challenged in the same journal. Such disputes should be described honestly. Neither an incomplete natural explanation nor a disputed reconstruction supplies positive evidence of supernatural causation.

The evidential position: the radiocarbon results and documented medieval appearance support a medieval origin. The DNA research does not overturn that evidence. Even a securely established first-century date would leave the separate claims of ownership by Jesus and miraculous image formation to be demonstrated.

Catholic Deception - Pope To Venerate The Fake of Turin
Fraud of Turin Exposed As A Fake Yet Again
More Evidence That The 'Shroud' of Turin Was a Medieval Forgery'
Turin Shroud Forgery Shows Changing Fashions in Art.
The Fake Turin Shroud.

The research paper was accompanied by a University of Lancashire report on the Turin Shroud.

New DNA research sheds light on the biological history of the Shroud of Turin
New research has uncovered the complex biological history preserved within DNA traces found on the Shroud of Turin, offering fresh insights into one of the world’s most studied and debated historical artefacts.
Published in Scientific Reports, the study is the first to apply advanced genomic sequencing methods (rigorous PCR-free next-generation metagenomic sequencing) to official samples collected from the Shroud in 1978. By analysing genomic DNA preserved within the linen fibres, the research offers the most comprehensive picture to date of the biological signatures left behind through centuries of human contact and biological exposure.

Professor Noemi Procopio, Professor of Forensic Science at the University of Lancashire, participated in the research which was part of a collaborative, international project. It identified multiple human mitochondrial DNA lineages, alongside a rich microbiome consisting of bacteria, fungi and salt-loving microorganisms. DNA traces from cultivated plants, domesticated animals and Mediterranean red coral were also detected, highlighting the diverse environments and people the Shroud has come into contact with throughout its history.

Rather than determining the age or authenticity of the Shroud, the research demonstrates the power of modern forensic genomics and proteomics to investigate the biological history of objects. It shows that, while centuries of human contact make it impossible to isolate any original DNA associated with the cloth, advanced metagenomic approaches can reveal valuable information about its preservation, environmental interactions and cultural history.

In addition to microorganisms commonly found on human skin, fungi and salt-adapted archaea, DNA from numerous plant and animal species was also identified. This included cultivated wheat, carrots, maize, bananas and peanuts, alongside cattle, pigs, chickens, dogs and cats. Together, these biological traces provide new details of the Shroud’s long history of handling, storage and movement across different geographical regions.

The Shroud of Turin continues to fascinate historians, scientists and the public, and we’re thrilled to reveal new information about the biological complexity preserved within samples collected almost 50 years ago by applying new cutting-edge forensic DNA technologies. The Shroud represents a rich archive of genetic information that has accumulated over centuries of human interaction and environmental exposure. While the DNA evidence cannot answer all the questions about the age or authenticity of the cloth, it provides novel insights into its biological history and demonstrates how advances in forensic science can unlock new information from historical artefacts.

Professor Noemi Procopio, co-author
Research Center for Field Archaeology and Forensic Taphonomy
University of Lancashire
Preston, UK.

Publication:
Barcaccia, G., Rambaldi Migliore, N., Gabelli, G. et al.
DNA signatures preserved in the official 1978 sample collection of the Shroud of Turin. Sci Rep 16, 21206 (2026). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-026-60684-7

Download PDF
Abstract
This research provides novel insights into the diversity of DNA extracted from samples collected from the Turin Shroud in 1978, revealing its biological complexity through rigorous DNA and metagenomic analyses. Our findings highlight its preservation conditions and environmental interactions, offering valuable perspectives into the identified genetic variants, which originated from multiple biological sources. We identified several human mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) lineages, including K1a1b1a, which matches the 1978 official collector’s mitogenome, H2a2 (i.e., the lineage of the mtDNA reference sequence rCRS), H1b, which is common in Western Eurasia, and the rare H33, which is also present in the Near East. Additionally, the reconstructed microbiome of the Shroud reveals a rich tapestry of multiple microbes commonly found on the human epidermis, as well as archaeal communities adapted to high salinity and fungi including molds. These findings are consistent with the preservation conditions experienced by the Shroud over the centuries. The presence of abundant Mediterranean endemic red coral, various cultivated plants (e.g., carrot, wheat, corn, bananas, and peanuts) and domesticated animals (e.g., cattle, pigs, chickens, dogs, and cats) provide a fascinating glimpse into the diverse biological sources of the contaminants that have accumulated on the Turin Shroud over time. Finally, radiocarbon dating of two distinct threads collected from the reliquary is consistent with their use in repair interventions of the Shroud carried out in 1534 and 1694 CE.

[…]

Conclusions
In this study, we sequenced and characterized genomic DNA traces found on the cloth edges, which were previously used for radiocarbon dating, and on other sections bearing the image of the Man of the Shroud. Molecular traces of contamination from individuals who handled the Shroud with limited protective precautions, including the 1978 sampling team in Turin, were expected. Our analysis revealed that the predominant mitochondrial lineage is characteristic of Ashkenazi Jews and matches the mtDNA haplotype of the late Prof. Baima Bollone, the collector, as also confirmed by kinship analyses on the entire genome. We also detected diagnostic variants of other haplogroups, such as the Western Eurasian haplogroups H2a2 and H1b, alongside H33, which is also found in Middle Eastern populations (i.e., Druze). The occurrence of an unusually high number of human mtDNA heteroplasmies, randomly distributed across the mitochondrial genome, and the coexistence of different mtDNA variants confirm that the Shroud came into contact with multiple individuals, thereby challenging the possibility of identifying the original DNA of the Shroud.

Intense human handling is confirmed by skin bacteria such as Cutibacterium and Staphylococcus. Halophilic archaea indicate salt preservation or saline storage conditions, but the presence of Debaryomyces hansenii and other fungi found in cheeses and hyper-saline waters raises further questions. Concerning the Shroud’s journey, the presence of red coral, livestock (e.g. chickens, cows, pigs, goats, sheep, rabbits, horses), and domestic cats and dogs suggest Mediterranean origins or transit through Mediterranean regions.

Plant DNA analyses revealed the predominance of cultivated species, which has historical implications. The concomitant and very abundant presence of both Daucus carota (domesticated carrot) and various Triticum species (cultivated wheat) suggests agricultural practices with both native and introduced crops. The carrot is the most prominent crop plant species identified in the Shroud. Wild populations of carrots with white roots have existed in Europe since more than two thousand years, as they were described by Pliny the Elder in the encyclopedic "Naturalis Historia" and used by Romans for medicinal purposes and food preparations (see Apicius, "De re culinaria" a collection of Roman cookery recipes). However, we demonstrated that the carrot DNA found on the Shroud is genetically more similar to early cultivars and improved cultivars. These cultivars were proven to descend from orange carrot varieties developed in Europe between the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries⁵². Among the other species identified, oranges and bananas, which are originally from Southern Asia and Eastern Oceania (China and Papua New Guinea), were introduced to the Mediterranean Basin by Muslim populations and Portuguese sailors in the late Middle Ages^43,53. Post-Columbus species, such as maize (domesticated in Mexico), Solanaceae crops (e.g. tomatoes, peppers, and potatoes), and peanuts (Fabaceae), which are crop plants native to Latin America, pose an additional significant conundrum about the Shroud’s antiquity, even if a later contamination cannot be ruled out. DNA traces from various species and regions, including the Middle East, the Mediterranean, Europe, America, and Asia, indicate that the Shroud was exposed to different environments and peoples. The prevalence of Mediterranean crops and the absence of typical Middle Eastern flora raise questions about the agricultural landscape when the Shroud was created or used as a burial cloth. Comparative analyses with other ancient textiles and artifacts could further illuminate cultural and historical interactions with plants and animals.

In conclusion, genetic and microbial evidence discloses a complex history of the Turin Shroud, reflecting interactions with a diverse array of individuals and exposure to various agricultural and environmental contexts. While some human mtDNA haplogroups correspond to those of individuals who handled and sampled the historical artifact in 1978, overall, the DNA results, derived from clean-room methodologies and metagenomic analyses supported by robust bioinformatics, suggest a mosaic of diverse genetic traces. The age of the Turin Shroud couldn’t be determined through metagenomics because this methodology is unable to provide any robust evidence supporting either a Medieval origin or a history dating back two millennia. Nevertheless, our findings constitute a novel and significant contribution to the field, thoroughly elucidating the biological traces left by centuries of social, cultural, and ecological engagement. Furthermore, radiocarbon dating of two distinct fabric threads collected from the reliquary confirms their use in mending and patching efforts to stabilize the fire-damaged linen cloth during two well-documented events in 1534 and 1694 CE. Collectively, our findings illuminate important aspects of the Shroud’s preservation history. [My emphasis]

Barcaccia, G., Rambaldi Migliore, N., Gabelli, G. et al.
DNA signatures preserved in the official 1978 sample collection of the Shroud of Turin. Sci Rep 16, 21206 (2026). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-026-60684-7

Copyright: © 2026 The authors.
Published by Springer Nature Ltd. Open access.
Reprinted under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (CC BY 4.0)

There is an additional problem for those who claim the image is an authentic funary shroud - a problem I've called the Gap of the God. The image on the shroud clearly shows the face and back of the head almost touching with a small gap where the crown of the head should be if a single piece of cloth had been used running from the back, over the head and down the face. The crown from front to back in a normal person is about the same length as the length of the face. Also, on the 'shroud' image the back of the head appears to be bald, while the face shows a full head of long hair (as in popular Medieval Western European images of Jesus)!

This was clearly a fundamental mistake by the artist who was concerned only the portray a front and rear image of a man.

Here is the actual image and the image produced by ChatGPT-6 Astra as it should appear.

Image on the 'shroud' showing the small 'Gap of the God'

Illustrative reconstruction showing a continuous crown impression, assuming the cloth contacted the top of the head and transferred an image there. Digitally modified from the original 'shroud'; not a forensic reconstruction.

There are other issues with the images on the 'shroud' not the least of which is the impossibility of having the elbow touching the ground (as in the rear view) with the hands in the positions shown in the front view (try it!). and the small matter of the front of th image being 7 cm. taller than the real. But then, as with creationists and physical evidence, such problems can be waved aside as planted to test our faith.

What this research provides is a clearer picture of the biological material accumulated on a much-handled historical object. What it does not provide is an identification of Jesus, a first-century date for the linen, or evidence of a resurrection. These are separate claims requiring separate evidence. No amount of enthusiasm about sophisticated DNA sequencing can bridge the gap between detecting genetic material and demonstrating whose burial cloth this supposedly was.

The distinction is particularly important when discussing genetic lineages associated with the Middle East. A person's ancestry does not establish where or when they touched an object, and the presence of their DNA cannot supply centuries of missing provenance. Selecting a geographically convenient result while overlooking the mixture of contributors, including modern handlers, would turn an investigation of contamination into an exercise in confirmation bias.

Meanwhile, the evidence favouring a medieval origin remains to be answered: the radiocarbon measurements, the cloth's documented appearance in medieval France, and the doubts expressed about its authenticity during that period. Questions about sampling and image formation are legitimate subjects for further investigation, but uncertainty is not a licence to insert a preferred religious explanation. Even if future work established that the linen was two thousand years old, its association with Jesus would still require demonstration, as would any claim that the image resulted from a supernatural event.

The value of this study lies in the questions science can investigate and the limits its authors acknowledge. Those limits are part of the result, not inconvenient qualifications that can be discarded when promoting a relic. Anyone presenting this paper as proof of the shroud's authenticity would be claiming a conclusion the research does not establish. A certificate of faith does not become a certificate of authenticity merely because someone attaches the words “DNA evidence” to it.

Advertisement

Amazon