I've found this a source of inspiration for many years, but I know that opinion is quite divided on the subject. Please share you thoughts on the Shroud, whether emotional or purely scientific.
The Shroud was condemned as a fake by the Church when it was first exhibited in the 14th century, but
one striking fact, in particular, causes me to question this. The nail holes are in the wrist, not in hands, as depicted in all religious art, following the gospels, which refer to 'hands'. If you were a forger, why would you do this and seriously risk your painstaking artefact being rejected?
Yes, and the Latin for wrist is 'la prima palmae pars', 'the first part of the palm', suggesting that the wrist was seen in those days as part of the hand. And what we also now know is that nails in what we call the 'hand' could not hold the weight of the body; something the Romans knew, but which medieval people did not.
My main point, however, would be that a medieval forger would not risk his (alleged) relic being rejected by the church by going against centuries of artistic tradition.
The Shroud was condemned as a fake by the Church when it was first exhibited in the 14th century, but
one striking fact, in particular, causes me to question this. The nail holes are in the wrist, not in hands, as depicted in all religious art, following the gospels, which refer to 'hands'. If you were a forger, why would you do this and seriously risk your painstaking artefact being rejected?