“And He was transfigured before them, and His face shone like the sun, and His clothes became white as light.”
—Matthew 17:2

The image on the Shroud of Turin shouldn’t exist.

By all known laws of chemistry, physics, and human ingenuity, it has no business being there—certainly not in the form we find it today: a full-length, anatomically accurate, front-and-back image of a crucified man bearing wounds that perfectly match the Gospel accounts of Jesus’ death, yet possessing qualities no medieval artist or forger could possibly reproduce.

It is, quite literally, an image without a cause—or at least without a cause from below.

But what if its origin was from above?

---

A Picture Painted in Light

The Shroud is not painted. This has been confirmed by every credible forensic, chemical, and microscopic study.¹ The image rests on the top 1–2 microns of the outer fibrils—far too superficial for brush, dye, or burn.² It lacks any binder (like egg, oil, or gum), shows no brush strokes, and behaves like a photographic negative centuries before photography existed.³

Even more baffling: the image contains three-dimensional spatial information. In 1976, scientists John Jackson and Eric Jumper ran the image through a NASA VP-8 Image Analyzer and discovered that unlike normal photographs or paintings, the Shroud image reflects depth based on vertical distance from the cloth.⁴

That means this isn’t just an image. It’s a 3D topographical map of a human body—encoded in the fibers of ancient linen.

And we still can’t replicate it.

---

Naturalistic Theories: Brilliant, But Broken

Multiple hypotheses have been tested over the decades. None account for the data without introducing more problems than they solve:

• Painting theory: Refuted by chemical and microscopic analysis.⁵ No pigment, no brush marks, no binder media.
• Scorch theory: Rejected due to lack of thermal fluorescence and the image’s precise superficiality. Scorching penetrates far deeper.⁶
• Maillard reaction (gas transfer): Invalidated by the absence of decomposition on the cloth. The body left no sign of putrefaction, suggesting rapid removal.⁷
• Medieval photography: The theory is inventive but lacks historical feasibility. The optics and chemicals did not exist—and even if they had, this process cannot replicate 3D encoding or micron-level image formation.⁸

One by one, the naturalistic explanations fail.

As chemist Raymond Rogers (a skeptic turned Shroud advocate) stated near the end of his life: “The image is an extremely complex phenomenon, which cannot be accounted for by any simple process that we have tested.”⁹

---

The Light Hypothesis: Where Physics Meets Theology

One hypothesis, however, refuses to go away—precisely because it fits the data better than any other: that the image was formed by a sudden, intense burst of radiant energy, such as ultraviolet light or radiation, emitted from the body itself.

Dr. Paolo Di Lazzaro and his team at ENEA (Italy’s National Agency for New Technologies) conducted laser experiments on linen in 2010. Their findings were stunning: only high-powered excimer lasers in the ultraviolet spectrum could produce a similar color change with the same superficial depth.¹⁰

But here’s the catch: to produce the Shroud’s image, such a burst would have to deliver a minimum of 34 billion watts of energy, focused and instantaneous—lasting only one-forty-billionth of a second.¹¹ That’s not just beyond medieval capabilities. It’s beyond modern capabilities.

Where, then, could such energy come from?

---

A Theological Hypothesis: The Physics of Resurrection

Let us propose a simple syllogism:

1. If Jesus rose bodily from the dead, and that event involved transformation into a glorified state (as Scripture teaches),
2. And if glorification involved an instantaneous release of intense light or radiant energy,
3. Then it is plausible that the burial shroud would bear a physical imprint from that release.

The Shroud image is precisely what we might expect if a body was transformed in radiant glory and vanished from a burial cloth.

That is, it is not just compatible with the resurrection. It is forensically suggestive of it.

Biblical support? Plenty:

• “His appearance was like lightning, and His clothing white as snow” (Matthew 28:3).
• “He dwells in unapproachable light, whom no one has ever seen or can see” (1 Timothy 6:16).
• “It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body… in glory” (1 Corinthians 15:42–44).
• At the Transfiguration, “His face shone like the sun, and His garments became white as light” (Matthew 17:2).

If such light emanated from within the tomb, it would not only explain the formation of the image—it would be exactly what one might expect from the moment of resurrection.

---

Bayesian Probability and Historical Reasoning

Now let’s introduce Bayesian analysis, often used in science and historical probability.

Let H be the hypothesis: Jesus rose from the dead, and the image on the Shroud is a residual effect of that event.

Let E be the evidence: the Shroud’s physical, chemical, anatomical, and photographic properties.

Bayes’ Theorem tells us that:

P(H|E) = [P(E|H) × P(H)] / P(E)

If the Shroud is what we’d expect if the resurrection happened (P(E|H) is high), and no other plausible hypothesis can explain it (P(E) is low unless H is true), then P(H|E)—the probability that the resurrection is true given this evidence—goes up.

Di Lazzaro himself said: “The probability that the Shroud image was made by ultraviolet radiation is higher than any known alternative.”¹²

Now apply that to history and faith. As William Lane Craig notes, historical hypotheses are chosen based on explanatory power, scope, and plausibility. On those terms, the resurrection stands tall—and the Shroud, quite possibly, bears its fingerprints.

---

The Counterfactual Test

Imagine for a moment the resurrection did happen.

Imagine a moment when a lifeless body suddenly bursts into radiant, incorruptible life—what kind of artifact might be left behind?

You wouldn’t expect graffiti. You wouldn’t expect paint. You wouldn’t expect nothing at all.

You might expect a trace of glory. A radiant “snapshot” burned into linen. Not by hand. Not by art. But by transformation.

That is what we find.

---

The Final Challenge

The Shroud is not proof in the modernist sense. But it is something stronger: a challenge to materialism. It demands a hypothesis big enough to explain it. Naturalism comes up short. Artistic theories collapse under scrutiny. Theories of fraud cannot account for the fiber-level anomalies, anatomical precision, or historical coherence.

What are we left with?

A linen cloth. A body-shaped image. No paint. No decay. No known explanation.

And a burst of light.

As the late French physicist André Marion put it: “If the man of the Shroud is not Jesus, then someone, somewhere, must explain how this image was made. Because we have no idea.”¹³

And maybe—just maybe—we do know how it was made.

Not by decay.
Not by deceit.
But by divine light.

A light that once shone in a dark tomb.
A light that now shines in the darkness still.
And the darkness has not overcome it.

---

Endnotes

¹ John P. Jackson et al., “The Shroud of Turin: A Critical Summary,” STURP Report, 1981.
² Giulio Fanti and Emanuela Marinelli, “Thirty Years of Studies on the Turin Shroud,” Journal of Imaging Science and Technology 55, no. 6 (2011).
³ Alan D. Adler and John Heller, “A Chemical Investigation of the Shroud,” Canadian Forensic Journal 14, no. 3 (1981).
⁴ Jumper and Jackson, “Image Characteristics,” in The Shroud of Turin Symposium, 1981.
⁵ Walter McCrone’s conclusions were overturned by chemical and microscopic data. See A. Adler, “The Orphaned Manuscript,” 2011.
⁶ Di Lazzaro et al., “Laser Irradiation of Linen,” Applied Optics 49, no. 13 (2010): E124–E129.
⁷ Rogers, “Studies on the Radiocarbon Sample,” Thermochimica Acta 425 (2005).
⁸ Nicholas Allen, “Is the Shroud a Medieval Photograph?” SA Journal of Art History 9 (1994).
⁹ Raymond Rogers, “Scientific Method Applied to the Shroud,” Thermochimica Acta 425 (2005).
¹⁰ Paolo Di Lazzaro et al., “Ultraviolet Radiation and Linen,” ENEA Report, 2010.
¹¹ Ibid.
¹² Ibid.
¹³ André Marion and Gérard Lucotte, The Shroud of Turin and Its Image, Paris: Presses de l’Institut, 2006.

---