Am I recording? You are listening to Stuff About Things, an art history podcast. Okay, let's vango. Hello and welcome to Stuff About Things, an art history podcast. My name is Lindsay, and for those of you who have not met me yet, allow me to introduce myself. My name is Lindsay. My dog's name is Gus, and I am currently working towards my PhD in art history. And that's about it. Welcome to episode 13 of the podcast. For the 13th episode, I will be discussing an object that might be one of the most hotly contested objects in recent history, the Shroud of Turin. Now, up until a few weeks ago, I had no plan, zero plan, to do an episode on the Shroud. Specifically because I've already done several episodes that are centered on Christian topics. And that's not bad, but I am looking for a bit of diversification. However, when I was home for the holidays, I floated the idea of doing an episode on the shroud to my mom, who's the podcast's biggest fan. Hi mom! And she got super excited about it, which made me excited about it, and I hope that you're excited about it. Those of you who already know what the Shroud of Turin is might be thinking, Lindsay, the Shroud of Turin is a relic. It's not an artwork. You can't make a relic the topic of an art history podcast. To which I say, Masho ma rules. Also, there is the very real possibility that the Shroud of Turin is indeed a work of art, or at least the work of human manufacture, but we'll talk about that in a little bit. The bottom line is this whether the Shroud of Turin is a relic or a work of art or you know an object of human manufacture, the Shroud of Turin is a thing, and things happen to be the specialty of this podcast. So buckle up, because I'm going to tell you stuff about a thing. Before we even get started, I think that it is responsible for me to say outright that I am a skeptic of the Shroud of Turin. However, I am not militant in my skepticism, and in researching and writing this episode, I have made a conscious effort to be as fair and respectful as possible. My goal is to inform, not to indoctrinate. First things first, what exactly is the Shroud of Turin? Materially speaking, the Shroud of Turin is an expanse of linen fabric that measures 14 feet 5 inches by 3 feet 7 inches. On first glance, the Shroud of Turin, to me, looks like a very long Rorschach test. You know those inkblot tests? It's this stretch of yellow fabric that has some holes and lines and blotches that are all roughly symmetrical. But if you look more closely, especially at photographic negatives of the shroud, you will see that the expanse of fabric bears two impressions the dorsal, which is the back, and the frontal images of a man. So this makes it look as if a body was laid out on half of the shroud, and then the remaining half was pulled over the body. The impression of the man shows signs of torture, including extensive wounds and drops of blood. Believers of the shroud's authenticity believe that this expanse of linen fabric served as the burial shroud of Jesus Christ himself, and that the impression of the body is potentially the only quote-unquote true image that we have of Jesus. For those of you who are not as familiar with the story of Jesus as others, let me do another quick recap of Jesus as he is presented in the Christian Bible. Christians believe that Jesus is the Son of God who was sent to the world to spread God's word and ultimately die in atonement for the sins of man. That's the short version of things, but the part of Jesus' story that is particularly relevant to today's episode is his death, burial, and resurrection. According to the Bible, Jesus was tortured by the Romans before he was crucified, a mode of capital execution that involved the victim being nailed to a cross and left to die. Jesus' mortal body was then removed from the cross and buried according to Jewish burial customs, which probably involved wrapping or covering the body in fabric. On the third day following his death, Jesus was resurrected, went out, proving that he had been resurrected, and then ascended into heaven. The end. So that's a lot, especially for people who maybe are not as familiar with the Christian stories, but for the purposes of today's episode, the really important point that you would want to remember is that when Jesus was buried, there was some kind of cloth covering involved in that process. Now that brings us to the star of the hour, the Shroud of Turin. For the past 400 years, the Shroud of Turin has resided in the Cathedral of St. John the Baptist in Turin, Italy. Hence its name, the Shroud of Turin. The Shroud is kept in this super cool chapel that was built specifically for it in the late 17th century. And if I understand things correctly, the Shroud is kept in a temperature-controlled box in the altar of that chapel. It is rarely on view, I'm talking every 10 to 20 years, but when it is on view, millions of people travel to see it, as it is one of the most extraordinary relics of the Catholic Church. Relics appear in any number of religions, from Christianity to Islam to Buddhism. But within Christian practice, a relic is an object that once belonged to or touched a saint or other holy figure. That includes entire bodies, two body parts, to bone fragments, to clothing, to handkerchiefs, to burial shrouds. The Shroud of Turin is the mother load of all Catholic relics. If it is authentic, the Shroud of Turin would have been the last thing to ever touch Jesus' body before his resurrection. But is it authentic? If I were to make an over-generalization, and I do grant myself permission to do so, permission granted, I would say that there are roughly two schools of thought when it comes to the Shroud of Turin. Those who believe or would like to believe that the Shroud of Turin is indeed the burial shroud of Jesus, and those who think the Shroud of Turin is some kind of forgery. Earlier I said that the Shroud of Turin reminds me, at least visually speaking, of a Rorschach test. And that's not a bad metaphor for how people think about the Shroud. When presented with the same linen shroud and its history, people see what they want to see. And let me tell you, both sides believe that they are right, gosh dang it. There is a veritable mess of information regarding the Shroud of Turin, and it can all get very muddled. Originally I had intended to give two summaries of the shroud, one for the pro-authenticity side and then one from the skeptics side, but I don't think that that's the way to go. Rather, I have attempted to synthesize the history and pseudo-history of the shroud and will let you decide what's persuasive and what's not. I do want to start this discussion with one fact. The Shroud of Turin is first documented in historical record in the 1350s. Anything that I talk about before 1350 is hypothetical. Rather than start in 1350 and then jump back and forth, I'm just going to go back to what many believe is the beginning of the Shroud's history, and that is the death of Jesus Christ. Jesus' existence is generally agreed upon by historians. I say that not to offend, but because some people who are listening are probably not religious and might have more doubts than others. The main sources of information on Jesus' life are called the Gospels, which were written in the century following Jesus' death by anonymous followers who are given the names Luke, Matthew, Mark, and John. These four books give a more or less cohesive account of Jesus' life, especially the later part of his life. In all four of these Gospels, there is the mention of Christ being tortured, crucified, and subsequently buried. Within those burial narratives, all four Gospels mention some kind of burial cloth. The only Gospel that complicates this narrative is the Gospel of John, which clearly states that Jesus was wrapped in linen strips. Obviously, the shroud of Turin is a sheet and not strips. Oh, that's what you call a contradiction. There is the possibility that that contradiction is the result of translation issues, but keep this in your noggin because it will come up again later in the episode. According to Christian belief, Jesus was resurrected after his burial. There are no explanations of how this happened or what it looked like. It was a miraculous event that took place in a closed tomb, so there were no witnesses. But when the followers returned to the tomb, um it was open and Jesus' body was gone. There is no mention in the Bible of anything left behind in the tomb. Presumably the burial cloth was left behind. I don't think Jesus took it with him, but it's certainly not mentioned. I bring that up because you assume if an item of that nature, if Christ's burial shroud covered in his blood, was left in the tomb, that the Gospels would have mentioned it. But they don't. Now, as with most things relating to the Shroud of Turin, just because something isn't mentioned doesn't mean it didn't happen. Silence does not necessarily equate to absence. Despite the fact that there is no mention of this shroud in the Bible, over the centuries several stories have developed about a so-called miraculous image of Jesus, one not made by human hands. In fact, several of these miraculous images are said to have existed in various places at various times. But the one that is the most prominent is the image of Edessa, which is a story that pops up sometime around the 5th or 6th century. Now the details of this story differ depending on who you ask, but the gist of it is this. Jesus washed his face, dried it with a towel, and then that towel somehow had a miraculous impression of his face on it. Like I'm thinking of when I wear really heavy makeup, and sometimes you know your face wash doesn't get it all off, and then you can kind of see where your eyes were on the towel. It's like that, but miraculous. This miraculous image of Jesus was then brought to Edessa, which is in modern day Turkey, where it remained for hundreds of years. The image became known as the Mendelian, which in Greek means little towel, which presumably referred to the small size of the cloth. It was a facial towel. Now is probably a good time to introduce you to another Greek word, which is that for shroud, syndan. So people who research and write about the shroud are often referred to as syndinologists. Syndonologist Ian Wilson has written an interesting, dare I say it, slightly persuasive argument that the shroud of Turin and the Mandelion are one in the same object. Wilson claims that the Shroud of Turin was just folded in a certain way and then framed, which then made it look like a little towel. Wilson has found references to the Mandelian that say it was difficult to read and did have blood spots on it, much like the Shroud of Turin, and he has even found at least one reference to the image being an entire impression of Christ's body and not just his face. To me, these stories are certainly interesting, but they are also highly selective. There have been many descriptions of the image of Edessa, some of which, quote, fit the Shroud of Turin, and many that don't. Also, the image of Edessa was said to have been made well before Christ was tortured and crucified, so why does it have blood on it? There is the possibility that the story of the image of Edessa was fabricated after the fact. Wilson argues that the person who had the shroud, at least at the beginning, would have known what it was, but may have been afraid to say anything because the object was so precious. It's a classic case of not being able to properly ensure something, you know, ancient style. Perhaps that necessitated the creation of a different story to explain this miraculous image, which was then subsequently presented in such a way that it fit the story that was created for it. I don't know about you, but that one made my brain hurt. In any case, the Mendelian moves to Constantinople in 944 and then eventually disappears in 1204, probably as the result of being either destroyed or stolen during the Crusades, the religious wars between Christians and Muslims. Even amongst those who staunchly believe in the Shroud of Turin, some people accept that it might be related to the image of Edessa, and some people don't. Either way, those who believe that the shroud is authentic do think that the Crusades had something to do with the Shroud getting transferred from the Holy Land to France, which is where the shroud pops up in the 1350s. Everything that I have said up until this point is totally hypothetical. It is a possible explanation for the origins of the Shroud of Turin. But as I said earlier, the first undisputed mention of the Shroud of Turin occurred in the 1350s in the town of Ligres, France. It just so happens that Ligret was the hometown of a man named Geffoi de Chanille. Excuse my French, quite literally. So I'm going to call Geffoy Jeff, because that's the English equivalent, and my French sucks. Jeff was an important citizen, he was a gallant knight, and he even had a hand in building the town's main church. And in the 1350s, Jeff reveals that he has in his possession the burial shroud of Christ. Uh, okay, Jeff. Kinda random, but okay. We have no idea how Jeff came into possession of this shroud. He does have a distant relation to someone who participated in the Crusades. I think it's his wife's like second cousin or something. But essentially, he just kinda has the shroud, which he puts on display in the local church. A few decades later, in 1389, the shroud goes on tour through France, being labeled as the burial shroud of Christ, and a bunch of people flock to see it from all over the place. While the shroud is on tour, a local bishop writes a letter to the Pope, Pope Clement VII, also known as the Anti Pope, what what? In his letter, this bishop claims that the shroud is a total fake, that it's been fake the whole time, and that he even got a confession from the person who made it. Furthermore, the bishop says that since this is fake, it should not be put on display. The shroud is essentially punking the pilgrims. It's duping them. And that just ain't holy. Clement ignores the bishop and just tells the people who are exhibiting the shroud to call it a quote representation of the shroud of Christ. This was also in keeping with what theologians were saying at the time, theologians being the people who study the Bible and the church. The theologians did not think that the shroud was real either. Because if the shroud was real, then the Gospel of John was wrong. Remember the Gospel of John and how it says that Christ was wrapped in linen strips? Now you might think, big deal. That's a pretty small detail, but for theologians it was a big deal. Because if that detail is wrong in John, then what other details in the Gospel might be wrong too? But the Pope's official stance was to leave it on display, let the pilgrims think whatever they were thinking, but if anyone asks, say it's a representation. That has been the general consensus of the Catholic Church ever since. Various popes have said that they personally think that the shroud is real, but there's never actually been an official Catholic stance taken on the shroud's authenticity, which is smart. Because if indeed the shroud turns out to be a forgery, the Catholic Church doesn't have to deal with so much fallout. All they have to do is just take the hit, and they can fall back on the old adage that it doesn't actually matter if the shroud of turn is real so long as it allows people to feel closer to God. That's what you call a cover your ass move. Getting back to the timeline, in the year 1453, Jeff's heir, who I will call Maggie, gave the Shroud as a gift to the Royal House of Savoy. And the House of Savoy is like, hey, that's so great, thank you so much. And I personally wonder what kind of favors Maggie asked for. Like, do you know how many royal favors you'd get for a gift of that gravity? I hope that she took advantage of that. The House of Savoy takes the shroud, but they don't take the best care of it. Because sometime over the course of the next century, not only does the shroud incur water damage, but it's almost gobbled up in a fire. Yes, that's right. In 1532 there was a big ol' fire that was so hot that it melted the silver casket in which the shroud was kept. Some of that molten silver did drop onto the shroud, burning a hole straight through it. The shroud was also folded at the time, meaning that if you unfurled the shroud, you would see those symmetrical burn holes. Think of that art project where you make snowflakes by sort of folding up the paper and then cutting at the edges. That's essentially what happened when that molten silver dropped on the folded shroud. The shroud has incurred a ton of damage from the fire. So the House of Savoy calls in a group of nuns to repair the shroud, and they get their little sewing kits out and they go to work. I'm imagining that nuns don't often get the time to shine, so like this was their moment. This is their career highlight, and they do the damn thing. They repair the crap out of that shroud. In 1578, after the shroud had been repaired, the House of Savoy moved to Turin and they took the shroud with them. Can you say precious cargo? About a hundred years after that, the family puts the shroud in their family chapel at the Church of St. John the Baptist, which is where the shroud has remained with very few exceptions for the last 300 years. Not a ton happens in the next couple hundred years, so we are just going to fast forward to 1898. In 1898, the Shroud of Turin was photographed for the first time. An Italian photographer named Secondo Pia was called in to take pictures of the Shroud, which back then resulted in a photographic negative. Now I'm picturing, ha, get it, picturing. I'm picturing Secondo Pia working away in his studio developing these images. And at some point he must have looked down and almost had a damn heart attack. Because it's in the photographic negatives that the image of the man on the shroud comes into greater clarity. Secondo Pia noticed this, and then he further enhanced the negative to make the image even clearer. I cannot emphasize how important these photographs were for the Shroud of Turin. For the first time in history, people weren't just seeing representations of the shroud, they were seeing pictures of it. The photographs are also what inspired the initial flurry of literature and studies on the shroud that appeared in the late 1980s and the early 1900s. The shroud would not be photographed again until 1931. That brings me to a pretty important point that I want everyone to keep in mind, no matter what side of things that you are on. The vast majority of people, even experts who have researched the Shroud of Turin, have only done so using photographs as their evidence. There is nothing inherently wrong with that. But as an art historian, it is engraved in my soul that one must actually go and see something firsthand, and preferably spend as much time with that thing as possible before you can even begin to form an opinion on it. But the shroud is generally inaccessible. It literally goes on display every 10 or 20 years if you're lucky. Photographs are all that we have to work with, though I do question how much information you can glean from photographs alone. I think that's important to keep in mind going forward. I think the biggest decade in question for the Shroud of Turin was the 1970s, because that's when the stuff really starts to hit the fan. Not only was that the year that the Shroud was first broadcast on TV in color, what? But it was also the first time that the Shroud underwent extensive study. In fact, a group of about 12 people, which included priests, a museum curator, and several well respected scientists, was invited to inspect the shroud and collaborate on the Best way to preserve it. They also took samples for testing. These samples included actual fragments of cloth as well as tape samples from the surface of the shroud, as in you literally put fancy tape on the surface and then pull it off, and then whatever comes off is your sample. It took several years for the findings from these tests to be released. The most interesting one regarded pollen samples taken from the shroud, which confirmed the presence of certain types of pollen only found in the Middle East, specifically Turkey or Israel. That meant that at some point the material of the shroud had been in the Middle East. However, scientists did not find any traces of blood or pigment in any of the samples that they took. Over the course of the 1970s and early 1980s, there were additional tests done on the Shroud. There was even a task force formed called the Shroud of Turin Research Project, known by the fun acronym of Stirp. Stirp was tasked with performing additional tests on the Shroud. We're talking photography, radiography, sample taking, and a bunch of other science I do not understand. As of the 1970s, the group was not allowed to do any carbon dating, as carbon dating required you to destroy whatever sample was used. And understandably, the caretakers of the shroud were not into that. All of the scientists involved in the Stirp project were well respected in their fields of study. However, several of them were also members of the Holy Shroud Guild, which was a group committed to proving the Shroud's authenticity. Now that doesn't necessarily take away from the scientific credentials of these people, but it certainly made the group more susceptible to accusations of bias. The Sturp team concluded the following about the Shroud. One, the image was not made by human hands, at least not by any known method of image making. And two, the blood that appears on the shroud is indeed blood and not the result of any kind of pigment. However, because of course there's a however, research carried out independently by another accredited scientist, Walter Macron, who used materials provided to him by the Stirp team, claimed the complete opposite. Macron claimed to have found traces of pigment, suggesting that the shroud was indeed a man-made object, made in part by the application of tempera paint. The Stirp team did attempt to replicate Macron's findings, but they couldn't. Macron went on to publish his theory, which really pissed the Stirp team off because they were like, What are you talking about? To which Macron responded, No, what are you talking about? And that is perhaps the best encapsulation of the conversation around the Shroud of Turin. It's a lot of scientists disagreeing and then yelling at each other. And that was just the start of that conversation. The fun really begins in the 1980s, when the Vatican finally allows samples of the shroud to be taken for carbon dating. This process should, should, clear up any misgivings by approximating the age of the shroud based on its materials. The Vatican took three postage stamp-sized samples from the shroud and sent each one to a different research lab. All three of these labs worked independently of one another and eventually released their findings. The result was the same from all three. The labs determined with 95% certainty that the samples provided to them dated back to the medieval period, specifically between the years of 1260 and 1390. This, of course, was a massive blow to anyone who believed that the shroud was indeed the shroud of Christ. The date range also happens to line up perfectly with the first appearance of the shroud in the 1300s. Case closed, right? Wrong. Those who believe in the shroud's authenticity rejected the lab's findings. Most people were decent enough not to attack the labs themselves, but rather claim that the samples provided had been taken from repaired portions of the shroud. This could be true, as the shroud had been patched up throughout the years. Other people claim that the material of the shroud must have been contaminated over the years, which would have skewed the results. To me, this whole horse and pony show seems so ridiculous that I almost think it was deliberate. I don't understand why the Vatican would have sent samples from a repaired part of the shroud. Or did they not know that it was a repaired part of the shroud? And then how did they find out it was a repaired part of the shroud? Like it's all just crazy. If anything, if it was a deliberate power play by the Vatican, I think it was a smart one. In the fact that the ensuing disagreements catapulted the shroud even further into the public consciousness and made the debate more intense than ever. The people who were skeptics were even firmer in their skepticisms, and those who believed in its authenticity were 100% convinced that the tests had in some way been compromised. I bet those scientists were pissed. They did all that work, their findings were corroborated by other people in their field, only to have the shroud pulled out from under them. I am offended on their behalf, and I wasn't even born yet. To my knowledge, the 1980s were the last time that any significant testing was done on the shroud. The most significant event that happened next was a fire in 1997, which was probably the result of arson. Thankfully, a firefighter ended up smashing the bulletproof glass that guards the shroud's casket, and then he and other firefighter buddies carried it out to safety. There's actual pictures of this all happening, and it was all very dramatic. Speaking of dramatic, that brings me to 2002. Oh boy, here we go. In 2002, there was a top secret renovation of the Shroud of Turin undertaken by textile experts. These experts were brought in by the Archbishop of Turin with the Vatican's permission. And this turned out to be a scandal. Part of that is because no one really knows why it took place. The official stance of the Archbishop of Turin was that somehow the fire damage caused in the 16th century was spreading. Now I don't even know what that means, and neither did anyone else. The fact that the restoration was undertaken in complete secrecy also irked people, especially the scientists who were members of the Turin Center for Shroud Studies, who were supposed to help in these circumstances, but the restorers never asked them for their opinion. Instead, they got to work. By the time the restoration was done, the textile experts had removed 30 patches of material that had been sewn onto the shroud by those nuns in the 16th century. They also removed the 16th century backing cloth that was supposed to stabilize the shroud before adding a newer one. The restorers also scraped off expanses of burnt cloth, which they then collected in jars. The entire process took over 30 days, during which the restorers, number one, did not wear gloves, and number two, exposed the shroud to unnecessary light and unfiltered air. When news of this restoration leaked, people were pissed. It's the one thing I think that skeptics and believers seemed to agree on. The process had essentially destroyed a whole boatload of potential data for scientific testing, either by its removal or its contamination. And worst of all, no one could seem to understand why it had even taken place. Many critics, again on both sides, came to the conclusion that the restoration was a power play on behalf of the church. They were signaling that the Shroud of Turin was theirs and that they were going to do with it what they saw fit. At least one person made what I think is a very convincing argument, which is that the Archbishop of Turin and the Vatican were both getting nervous about how advanced technology was becoming. They therefore took steps to shut down the possibility of accurate scientific testing in the future. And this was an opinion shared on both sides of the equation. Archaeologist and Shroud enthusiast William Meacham, who believes that the shroud may indeed be authentic, even wrote a book about the restoration, which he titled The Rape of the Turin Shroud. That should tell you what he thought about it. Since the 2002 Restoration, there haven't really been any serious developments in the study of the Shroud. There have been a couple of articles here and there, but the 1980s remains the golden age of shroud study. From my vantage point in 2019, I think it's safe to say that there will never be a consensus about the Shroud of Turin unless more testing is allowed. Placing, I don't see that happening, but I am a skeptic, so you never know. Now I hope you're still with me. I know that that was a lot of information, but now that you have the history of the Shroud, that I hope was at least somewhat even keeled, I can now go into why each side of the argument thinks that they are right. I'll follow this up with my own personal opinion of the shroud, because I know everyone's just dying to hear that. Now obviously I can't include every little bit of evidence for both sides, but I will try to hit the big stuff. First, let's start with the case for authenticity. If you believe that the image on the shroud of Turin was made by laying the body of a dead man on the shroud, then the image on the shroud speaks for itself. Not only does the figure bear all of the wounds characteristic to a Roman crucifixion, but there are several other wounds that were, as far as we know, specific to Christ, including a cut on the side and puncture marks around the forehead as if from a crown of thorns. Additionally, over the past 100 years, several anatomists have claimed that the image on the shroud is, quote, anatomically flawless. They've even drafted autopsy reports based on the image, all of which adhere to the story of Jesus' torture and crucifixion as told in the Gospels. Other scientific tests have also shown that the blood on the shroud is real. There's also the fact that no one can figure out how the damn image was made. There's a smaller subset of staunch believers who think that the image was made at the moment of the resurrection, caused by a miraculous burst of light or something similar. The miraculous nature would also confirm why the linen isn't in worse shape after nearly 2,000 years. For the believer, these pieces of evidence are enough. So it doesn't really matter how the shroud got to France in the 1350s, because believers have enough evidence to allow for that gap in the record, as they believe that the impression of the man could only have been made by one person in history, Jesus. As for the carbon dating in the 1980s, those tests may have been run on a section of shroud that had been mended in later centuries. There are also a bunch of additional tests and studies that support additional elements of the authenticity side of the argument. I can't go into those right now, but they do exist. Now let's switch to the other side, the skeptic's perspective. For those who believe that the shroud is a forgery, there are two big red flags that should be obvious. First is the fact that the shroud seems to come out of nowhere in the 1300s, but it also happens that the carbon dating from the 1980s confirmed that the materials sampled could be dated to that very time period. Moreover, there is a record of a bishop who actually wrote to the Pope saying that the shroud was a forgery, which seems to steal the deal. I can also assure you that even devout, good Christians have forged relics over the years, usually to generate desperately needed money, but also to provide spiritual comfort in times of need. But let's disregard the bishop's claims as well as relic forging, just for fun. Let's say that the bishop was lying or got a false confession about the shroud. That doesn't change the carbon dating. Skeptics reject the idea that the shroud dates from any other time period, including the rejection of a recent study in 2013 that claimed a fiber of linen from the shroud dated back to the time of Jesus. That test has been publicly denied by the Archbishop of Turin himself. Then there is the fact that many tests claim to prove flawless anatomy or natural blood flow patterns, and those have all been disproved by other studies throughout the years. And then those studies have then been disproved, and it's just this cycle of completely different scientific opinions based on the same object. No matter what new finding comes out, no matter how credible it is, there is always a response, usually by someone equally credible. It's a push and pull that proves nothing other than no one seems to have a surefire method for testing this object. Then there's the matter that no one knows how the object was made. That's not a smoking gun. The absence of explanation does not mean that no explanation exists, just means that we don't know it yet. Now what about the fact that the impression of the man corresponds in every way to the wounds of Jesus? No one is denying that. But skeptics don't see that as confirmation that the figure is Jesus. It is simply confirmation that whoever made the shroud wanted it to look like Jesus. The more realistic, the better. Except the figure isn't realistic. Despite some claims the figure is, quote, anatomically flawless, others have seen signs of elongated proportions that would be consistent with figures from Gothic art. I think that you can hear the frustration in my voice because I have spent the last three weeks reading studies that just cancel one another out, and it's so frustrating. So speaking of me, what do I think? I think that it would be extraordinary if somehow someone could prove to me that the shroud of Turin is real. I would not be opposed to being proven wrong in my skepticism. To be honest, the heart of my skepticism stems from the fact that I just think the shroud looks fake. It just looks fake to me. How in the world could a cloth draped over the body of a dead man come away with that impression, even with a miraculous burst of light? It just doesn't compute in my brain or my eyeballs. I am also well acquainted with how prevalent religious forgery was in the medieval era. Maybe that's why to me the shroud looks exactly like something you'd expect from someone attempting to make a forgery of the burial shroud of Christ. It doesn't help the fact that there is no record of the shroud before the 14th century, and that happens to be the same date as the carbon dating of the materials. I also think it is extremely irresponsible for anyone, including myself, but especially scientists, to have any staunch opinions about an object that most of them haven't seen in person, much less tested. Some scientists, however, have tested the shroud and spent a lot of time with it. Fair. But to me, the findings didn't prove anything. It proved that maybe the material had once been in the Middle East, that no one really knew how it was made, and that the blood stains did indeed contain blood. Well, that doesn't necessarily mean it was the blood of Jesus. I can't prove that it isn't the blood of Jesus. As one of the scientists on the STERP team said, there's no tests for Jesus. For every test that seems to confirm something, there is one for debunking it, and vice versa. I find it very difficult to take anything seriously given the source material. Then again, as I have just said, I think the source material looks fake. So there's my bias right there in the open. I also just happen to be super stubborn. Ask my mother. So if someone is trying to convince me to believe something, I get real suspicious. Ultimately, though, and this is honest, I think the Shroud of Turin is an extraordinary object. Do I think it's miraculous? Personally, no. But that doesn't make it any less amazing. In reading books and articles on the Shroud of Turin, there's one trope that seems to come up over and over again, and that is of scientists who have been converted to Christianity during their investigations into the Shroud, or at least being brought back into the church. Some people take that as proof of the Shroud's miraculous abilities, and that's great. I'm glad that your encounter with an object changed your life for the better. I genuinely enjoy hearing and reading accounts of the people who have visited the shroud and are just overcome with emotion. Part of me is even envious of that reaction. But the skeptic in me marvels at one object's ability to inspire such fervent debate and reaction. I have a difficult time wrapping my head around it. In fact, this episode was by far the hardest one yet to write, because the Shroud of Turin is perhaps the most difficult object to pin down. Despite that, I think that people will make their very best efforts to do so in the years to come. But until then, and probably even after, the Shroud of Turin will continue to inspire millions of Christians and frustrate skeptics. As the debates surrounding the Shroud go, there is very little in between. One might even say that the Shroud is shrouded in mystery. Ha ha, sorry, couldn't resist. With that, I am going to transition out of talking about the Shroud and into talking about sources about the Shroud. One of the best and oddly, the most even-keeled source that I found is the official Shroud website, Shroud.com, which is run and moderated by Barry Schwartz, a member of the Shroud of Turin Research Project. STRP! The website is super old school in terms of digital savvy, but it is extensive in terms of information and resources. The site is naturally biased towards the pro-authenticity side of things, though I was quite impressed by their efforts to incorporate both sides of the argument and remain fair in answering questions. It's not a surprise that over 58 million people have visited the site in its 20-some-year history. Now I didn't use the website as a scholarly source, but it certainly is a compendium of information, often with useful links, timelines, and recommendations for further reading. It's also really easy to use. I'm looking at you, Mom. I am also going to put a bunch of sources on the podcast's website, stuffaboutthingspodcast.com. I will include those scientific, academic, as well as popular literature on the topic. For anyone who goes on to research the shroud on your own, I will just say be wary of your sources. Don't believe everything that you read that goes for either side of the argument. Though I think that that's a good all-around piece of advice to follow for our media these days. I will also post a bunch of pictures on the website too, so head on over there for the sake of both your eyeballs and your brain. For those of you who are interested in seeing the Shroud of Turin in person, start planning a trip to Italy for the year 2025. That is the next scheduled exhibition of the Shroud, though one might occur earlier, you never know. Otherwise, there is a replica of it in the Shroud of Turin Museum in Turin, and there are also a couple of other copies around places. I found one in Milan the last time I was there, so you never know. You might turn a corner and bam, there's the shroud. If you have already seen the shroud, I would love to hear about what that was like. Additionally, I'd love to hear your thoughts on the shroud. Are you a believer? Are you a skeptic? Do you fall somewhere in the middle? I don't know. I'd love to hear it. You can reach me either at the podcast's website, stuffaboutthingspodcast.com, or at the podcast email, stuffaboutthingspodcast at gmail.com. As for Gus Corner this week, he is doing magnificent. He is spoiled as ever. At one point when I was home over the holidays, I even found him sleeping on my bed, despite the fact that he is not supposed to be on the furniture. I will throw that picture up on the website too for good measure. Why not? In between snoozels and walkies, Gus managed to infiltrate three more works of art since the last episode. The new artworks now featuring Gus include Raphael's School of Athens, Gustav Moreau's George and the Dragon, and Peter Paul Rubens's Self-Portrait with Wife, the latter of which has been turned into self-portrait with sister. As always, a big thanks to hooksounds.com and freemusicarchive.org for the music. That is all for me today. Woo! I feel like this was this was a mouthful of an episode. A brainful too. I thank you guys so much for listening. I really appreciate you getting to the end of the episode. And as always, I hope that you take the time to look at something beautiful today.
unknownBye.