Analysis: the Shroud of Turin

The truth about the Shroud of Turin (the “Mandylion”) has been more than a mystery for over six-hundred years; it has been a mystery wrapped in an enigma steeped in controversy. Prior to the late 1300s, there was no apparent question about its existence or authenticity, nor doubt about its origin or meaning, not among Christians. Now, a growing cadre of scholars and scientists have come to the conclusion that this artifact is genuine and that—thanks to the application of technologies less than one-hundred years old—the Turin Shroud is more amazing than anyone could have appreciated in any of those foregone centuries known to some as the Piscean Age. 

Because PluribusOne™ Consulting has not had the opportunity to directly study any materials or test results we cannot validate or invalidate analyses performed on the numerous pieces of hard and soft evidence presented by scholars and scientists. However, based on extensive review of documentation made available over recent decades, we feel that their efforts have been diligent and that historical records, together with studies of the image on the shroud, add up to compelling evidence that, about two-thousand years ago, a two-dimensional record of a three-dimensional human body was embedded in the hand-made funerary linen known today as “the Shroud of Turin.” 

The challenge put to us is whether our Noetitek™ system can enhance perception with respect to the Shroud and reveal something that has been overlooked or understated. The answer is: yes. 

We are able to offer a new perspective on what the Shroud “is” and also, more importantly: “what it means.” Our perspective is not religious, nor is it skeptical; rather, our perception and opinion is based on a blend of science and spirit—some might call it “unorthodox gnosticism”—in keeping with our NoetiTaoist™ philosophy, which reflects the principles and processes of Nature. The following paragraphs summarize our conclusions. 

The Shroud is a work of sacred art of the highest order, the creation of the highest order of creativeness. And, what is the purpose of art? To communicate; and the purpose of sacred art is to express eternal truths in a manner that stirs the soul—that engages the heart/emotions and mind/intellect. Sadly, perceptions to date that the Shroud may be “art” have concentrated on suspicion that the Shroud might be fraudulent, perhaps painted by an artist such as Leonardo during the Renaissance. Our second-hand review of the scientific tests, including the generation of a three-dimensional image from the information presented two-dimensionally, settles the matter of genuineness. The image of the man on the Shroud—which any court of law would say fits the description of Jesus—is not an image made with paint or dye but by radiation. 

Next logical question: What eternal truth is the Shroud attempting to impart, and why? 

The image on the Shroud is telling the world what science already knows: that the human body is bioelectric, an energy field/vortex. Matter is just slow energy—ultimately: light. Jesus taught that he was the light of the world, and he taught his disciples: “You are the light of the world.” (Matt. 5:14-16) As good teachers do, Jesus taught through using words and making demonstrations: healing the sick, raising Lazarus, making wine from water, manifesting food, among other “miracles.” The Shroud, we say, is evidence of his final demonstration, done for the purpose of teaching that we, as well as he, are immortal beings wrapped in mortal flesh. His intention was to liberate (save) all who would “see and hear” him from the belief that humans are powerless beings who must live in obedience and service to cultural authorities and tradition.


Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

7 Responses to “Analysis: the Shroud of Turin”

  1. Stark Raven Says:

    The shroud has been of interest to me for at least twenty years during which I have watched several televised programs and read many books. The blood stained areas do match with the story of the events before, after, and during the crucifixion, which inclines me to think it may have been Jesus but what about the Roman coins on the eyes and the Roman amulet around the neck? It was not customary to place coins on the eyes of a corpse in a Jewish burial. Jesus was a Jew and he wasn’t a Roman citizen. The argument I heard was that the coins were just used as an immediate convenience to keep his eyelids shut and that just doesn’t wash.

  2. PluribusOne™ Says:

    Consider it possible that the Roman soldier who helped take Jesus down from the cross—Abenadar the Centurian, based on a non-canonical text—assisted with preparation of the body for entombment and placed those items on the body as symbols of his respect.

    Coin-cidentally, the coins help date the Shroud, which may be the purpose they were “destined” to serve.

    In any case, Jesus was not a tradition-bound Jew. He made it clear that it was never intended that the Jews be enslaved to scripture; the guidance of scripture was meant to liberate them. I interpret the presence of the coins and amulet as purposeful symbols of the expansion of the teachings of Jesus beyond the culture of his physical birth.

  3. Paul A. Says:

    Carbon-14 testing indicated that the cloth is only about 700 years old. I have heard unconvincing explanations why the test was declared invalid by other scientists. Do you have an explanation that is different from the ones published to date?

  4. PluribusOne™ Says:

    In addition to existing arguments against the test results of the solitary and non-randomly selected scrap of fabric, we do have an explanation: that the radiation which created the image also altered the cloth’s chemical composition (other than the later patches, obviously).

    The separate cloth (the “Sudarium of Oviedo”) that was wrapped around Jesus’ head before he was removed from the Cross—and which was not subjected to the radiation—has never, to our knowledge, been Carbon-14 tested for comparison. It should be tested in order for scientific testing to be complete.

  5. Sandi Says:

    I read an argument that Da Vinci painted the Shroud of Turin, basing it on his drawing of the Vitruvian Man which itself was based on a Roman architect’s theory of natural proportion. The article said D Vinci had access to the shroud, which had no image on it at the time, and that he painted it at the direction of his patron in order to make it look more mysterious and convincing to Christian believers. What is your response to that claim?

  6. PluribusOne™ Says:

    Da Vinci may have had access to the Shroud, but if he did examine it he could only have done so for the purpose of testing the validity of Vetruvius’ theory about the proportions of the “ideal man” and/or testing whether the purported “only begotten Son of God” had displayed the ideal proportions.

    The Shroud had not been kept a secret over all those centuries. For an image to suddenly appear on it in 1487, an image to evidence the Resurrection, is an idea too absurd to consider.

    In addition, we see no similarity between the image on the Shroud and the drawing of the Vituvian Man, apart from the fact that they are both human males. Alleging a connection between Leonardo and the image on the Shroud is, in our opinion, baseless.

  7. PluribusOne™ Says:

    We wish to share the results of the most recent scientific examination of the shroud, which supports the conclusion stated in our post.

    Researchers at the National Agency for New Technologies, Energy, and Sustainable Economic Development in Italy have concluded that the image on the shroud was created by an intense flash of ultraviolet light. This effect would require either a supernatural event or use of a technology that has only existed in recent years.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s