The Shroud of Turin - an Obvious Hoax

I recently traveled to Oklahoma on a trip that was part business, part recreation. After a busy and productive day I returned to my motel room and did something I seldom do - watched television. Twenty years ago when I gave my last television set away it was because I had been completely turned off by the intellectually vacant and inane fare that this once promising medium spewed out in a continuous stream to its chosen target audience - the typical twelve year-old. About the only two things I found that were worth watching were Animal Planet and the History Channel: it was on this latter that I watched a program on the famous Shroud of Turin.

This piece of linen that supposedly bears the imprint of the crucified body of Jesus is, in my opinion, proof that people are as gullible today as any Medieval churl. In my research into the realm of bizarre theories it seems to me that the most intensive research into one of these gems is carried out by those who want the theory to be true. In the case of the shroud they must really want it to be legitimate, considering the thousands of hours devoted to its study. But the so-called evidence just doesn't hold up and, again in my opinion, the evidence of obvious fraud goes entirely ignored and unremarked.

There are two items upon which the "faithful" rest their claim of authenticity; the origins of the linen and the blood evidence of the wounds in the man's head, wrists, trunk, and feet. But these so-called proofs are not conclusive by any means. Here we will examine each from a rational point of view. Concerning the linen itself, it is impregnated with pollen and dust found only in Palestine. While this may be true it doesn't prove that the shroud originated there. From the time of the First Crusade traffic between Europe and the Middle East brought many eastern artifacts west. The blood evidence is no more convincing, since all it proves is the presence of blood in all the right places, not the wounds alleged to be the source of these stains. That would make the shroud an antiquated example of "special effects" created to induce the belief in the reality of the representation. It just doesn't.

To present the argument of fraud it will be necessary to cite some quirks of the human psyche as demonstrated in the sub-conscious; acts and mindsets so deeply ingrained in the mind that people demonstrate them without realizing it. One example is that of a visitor to my home once who asked to use my bathroom. But his didn't use that word; instead he asked if he could use my "basement." Undoubtedly this man was educated in a Catholic parochial school (as was I )where he was indoctrinated into the belief that certain natural bodily functions are dirty, and should not even be mentioned. Nurses in Catholic hospitals, when told that one of their child patients needed to eliminate some waste, would ask "is it number one or number two?" And it's a safe bet that people so conditioned never realize what they are saying, how dumb it sounds. There are certain habits and practices in which people engage without any realization as to what they are doing or saying. At these deep levels of assimilation there is often little difference between intent and action.

Once, when answering machines were the sole means of recording incoming telephone calls, my girlfriend and I were leaving my apartment. She stood waiting with a puzzled look on her face as I dangled my keys on my right index finger and raised my right foot - and turned my answering machine on.
"Why did you do that?" she asked. I told her it was so I wouldn't experience the anxiety of wondering, after we had left, if I had turned the machine on. There were times when I truly couldn't recall this simple act, and there were also a couple of times when I was sure I'd turned it on but hadn't. Intending to turn it on, I was distracted by something, and thus didn't activate the device but was sure I had because I had thought to do so.

By citing these idiosyncrasies of word and deed we may come to understand the visual evidence that the Shroud of Turin is an out and out fraud. It boils down to the difference between a rational, clear thinking adult, and an ideologue. The intelligent adult's beliefs are conditioned by knowledge derived either from experience or study; the ideologue is the exact opposite: the ideologue's knowledge is conditioned by his beliefs, and when presented with any evidence counter to his a priori conclusions he will cling to those beliefs and absolutely deny the truth.

Let us return our attention to the figure on the shroud. Note the position of the hands. While it may conform to twelfth century sensibilities, the covering of the male genitalia in the manner shown on the shroud would be impossible if the man were truly dead. It is something that anyone can prove to him- or herself. Lie on the floor and cover yourself that way; you'll find that you must arch your shoulders forward and raise you elbows from the floor. This would require effort well beyond the capacity of a dead man. But once you relax your shoulders will fall back, causing your elbows to contact the floor, and your hands will pull away from the site, either coming to rest on your thighs or at your sides. There is no way a dead man could hold his position unless positioned that way at the onset of rigor mortis. Why would anyone bother to wait for the body to stiffen just to arrange the hands in this way unless they knew that the image would be transferred to the cloth? It just doesn't make any sense. The shroud is touted as a "miracle" and investigators still puzzle as to how the image was transferred, therefore the people who set this tableau must have known it would show up. If the body were coated with vinegar the pose would have to be held for time enough to allow the acidity to impregnate the cloth: after the imprint was made additional vinegar could have been introduced and allowed to set long enough to bring out the figure more clearly. But in any case no truly dead man could hold the position that the shroud shows even for an instant, much less the length of time it would take to transfer the imprint of his body to the cloth.

It seems from all this that the taboo against exposing male reproductive organs that was promoted in the twelfth century, and is still very much in evidence today, trumped the physiological truth that a limp, dead body would be unable to hold this position of false modesty at all. Didn't the pope order Michaelangelo Bounarotti to drape the nude male figures on the Sistine ceiling? Instead of asking how the shroud was created, a better question would be; Why?

The high water mark of the Roman Catholic church was the Medieval period. It was at this time that its grotesque, fear inspiring dogma found fertile ground in the ignorance and superstition of the illiterate masses who flocked to the cathedrals and parish churches of the day. There just wasn't very much diversion in the typical city or town of the Middle Ages, so church was a place to go to feel safe and perhaps to feel that life is worth living. Those who lived in cathedral towns were especially awed by the soaring grandeur and the rich appointments of such houses of worship. The church held its congregations spellbound and in fear of eternal damnation, subject to the whims of an angry, unforgiving God, whose love they were encouraged to treat. The church demanded sacrifices of its followers and occasionally rewarded them with some rare gift - such as the relic of a saint, or some other hokum that the con artists of the day dreamed up to further gull the gullible. Europe during this period was awash with bones, hair, blood stains, pieces of the "true cross" and any other artifact that could be claimed to have connection to a saint. These relics were of course for sale. One commentator wrote that there were enough pieces of the "true cross" in circulation to build a decent sized house.

The Shroud of Turin must have been the ne plus ultra of "holy relics", the cloth in which the precious body of Jesus was wrapped (false modesty and all) after his crucifixion, an event that is documented nowhere else but in the Gospels. And these accounts were written by men who weren't there at the time of this alleged execution; their essays are based solely upon hearsay. It is curious that no one at the alleged time of the crucifixion had anything to say about it, although the man being killed was one who; cleaned lepers, walked on water, raised the dead, drove out demons, and the like. Jesus should have been wildly popular, yet this seems not to have been the case. Yet the gullible, so easily convinced, probably ponied up top dollar for this "treasure" as they did for St. Geronimo's nose hairs, or St. Swithen's fingernail clippings.