What do you think?
Rate this book
The Truth About the Shroud of Turin: Solving the Mystery
Is the shroud of Turin—an ancient linen bearing the mysterious image of a man, purported to be Jesus of Nazareth—the ingenious work of an artist, or the true shroud of Christ? For centuries, this question has perplexed and enticed the most brilliant minds. Now, in The Truth about the Shroud of Solving the Mystery , journalist Robert K. Wilcox investigates every aspect of the shroud’s history, from the ancient Egyptian weave of the cloth to the possible role of radiation in forming the image on its surface. Drawing on evidence collected over thirty years of travel, interviews with experts, and painstaking research, Wilcox presents the full story of the shroud in astonishing detail. The shroud of Turin—a clever hoax or the authentic burial cloth of Jesus Christ? Read this reporter’s journey and discover the truth.
"Wilcox weaves an intriguing detective story, utilizing over 30 years of research including trips the world over, seeking to unravel the secrets of the world’s most intensely-studied artifact, giving readers much evidence to decide if the Shroud is just an elaborate hoax or the actual burial cloth of Jesus."
—JOSEPH MARINO, shroud scholar
"Wilcox weaves an intriguing detective story, utilizing over 30 years of research including trips the world over, seeking to unravel the secrets of the world’s most intensely-studied artifact, giving readers much evidence to decide if the Shroud is just an elaborate hoax or the actual burial cloth of Jesus."
—JOSEPH MARINO, shroud scholar
252 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1977
22 people are currently reading
200 people want to read
About the author
Robert K. Wilcox
11 books16 followersRobert K. Wilcox is a bestselling author, screenwriter, novelist and journalist. He specializes in mysteries and military history. He began his career as religion editor of the Miami News, winning the Supple Memorial Award as the best religion writer in the nation. He went on to write for the Miami Herald, New York Times and other major newspapers and magazines before becoming a television writer and story editor. He has written 10 books and specializes in political articles when not writing books. His next book is Target JFK: The spy who killed Kennedy?, to be published November 2016. He lives in Los Angeles. His website is: www.robertkwilcox.com
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 19 of 19 reviews
March 8, 2015
This book is not terribly well written, and it can list that as a merit. The research is old, when Mr. Wilcox "updated" the research he did in 1977, he organized it by adding the new material essentially as an addendum. He did not go back and correct any of the sciences in the original section, which is an AWFUL SHAME, because much of it is outdated, incorrect, disproved, or otherwise irrelevant.
The Kirlian photographs, a glaring example, have been demonstrated to have captured “corona discharge”, a phenomenon that occurs “when one of two conducting surfaces (such as electrodes) of differing voltages has a pointed shape, resulting in a highly concentrated electric field at its tip that ionizes the air (or other gas) around it”. I am not a science person, yet Mr. Wilcox's explanations read terribly shaky to me including mystical (“aura” (p.154) and pseudo-scientific language (“bio-radiation” [p.154]). So I looked it up. I got the definition from merriam-webster's online dictionary. All he had to do, as an INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALIST, is do the same. By 2010, the fact that Semyon Kirlian had accidentally discovered “corona discharge” rather than miraculously captured on film the aura of living things was already a well-established fact; why the author fails to clarify this is beyond me.
He had the audacity of claiming in the introduction that he has no intention of leading the reader to one conclusion or another, yet he lists a completely imagined account of resurrection side by side with other shoddy evidence that he has gathered. He goes so far as to explicitly say that he believes the Shroud is more than probably real at the very end. What kind of investigative journalist does that?
This book should infuriate anyone who is interested in the Truth. The science does not add up. He holds a skeptical attitude towards carbon-14 dating. In his introduction of the subject, he calls carbon 14 dating “a fairly new scientific method” that can “determine—usually, but not always with a great deal of accuracy—the amount of Carbon 14 left in an object” (p.159). This is patently false. Carbon Dating is widely accepted in all the fields of science where it is found applicable. Though there are limitations on the technology, those limitations do not impact the dating of the Shroud because the 2,000 years is WELL within the range of accurate returns. In introducing Dr. Willard Libby, Wilcox failed to mention that Dr. Libby was head of the research team that created the radiocarbon dating method, implicitly undermining his grasp of the technology. As for radiocarbon-dating being a "fairly new method" and therefore somehow inherently suspect, Dr. Libby received the “Research Corporation Award for 1951 for the radiocarbon dating technique” according to the Nobel Prize website, proving the early recognition for the importance and viability of this method within the scientific community. Furthermore, the technique has withstood the test of time though the sciences are extremely self-critical and always self-correcting in their discipline.
And if that didn't convince the reader that the results are suspect, Mr. Wilcox goes on to document criticism of the sample selection and suspicion of repair or contamination. . The first claim comes from “Dr. Eugenia Nitowski, a Holu Land archaeologist and Utah-based Catholic nun” who believes that shroud’s exposure to countless people, candle smoke and direct sun, fibers from other fabrics, the fire of 1532, water and more may have contaminated the sample (p.196). The truth is that none of these interactions and exposures have the ability to change the molecular structure of the atoms of the Shroud. Save for fire, except that it requires the fire to totally consume the Shroud. Wilcox went on to add that the “1532 fire alone could have changed the carbon content [of the Shroud]”, which is patently untrue (p.196). Then the textile expert John Tyler was quoted claiming that “moisture in the cloth would have turned to steam. Contaminants would have dissolved ‘and been forced not only into the weave and yarn, but also into the [individual linen] fibers” (197). This again was scientifically baseless conjecture. The dating technique would return a variety of values in this case and all of the contaminants that showed up inadvertently will be so far dated from the believed age of the Shroud as to have been discounted in the process. Finally, “Dr. Alan Adler, a chemist and member of STURP”, Wilcox wrote, “wrote that mixed material like that which they believed the shroud contained (cotton from the sixteenth century and linen 2,000 years old) would return a 1210 AD date of origin, very close to the mean date of 1200 AD given by the three labs testing in 1988” (p.214). This was, once more, a completely false claim. Because however skilled the supposed repairer was at creating a seamless blend between the original fabric and the added patch, the supposed repairer has no way of blended the two molecularly. Had the Shroud of Turin been repaired previously, and the sample representative of the repair and the original, then carbon 14 dating would reveal two distinct values for each date of origin.
Worse than this, some of the 'experts' he consults are straight up ESP-experts, and he delves into all sorts of pseudo-sciences like parapsychology, identology and others. That kind of S%%T has no place in serious journalist unless it's a historical piece on those nutjobs.
The history of the Shroud as Mr. Wilcox believes to have unfolded, simply canNOT be. He claims that “the imprinted clotht is old, at least 600 years old as the ‘shroud of Turin,’ probably nearly 2,000 years old as the ‘Image of Edessa.’ (p.185). Wilcox fairly proved that the Image of Edessa COULD have been a full body print as is the Shroud of Turin as much as it could have been the much-rumored facial print alone. As far as the ORIGIN of the Image of Edessa, he cites only a legend. Wilcox wrote, “they say that when an early king of Edessa, Abgar V, became mortally ill, he sent for Jesus, the miracle-worker he had heard about”. He continues that “Jesus did not go to the king himself; instead he pressed a cloth to his face, miraculously leaving his image on it, and sent it back with the king’s messenger” (p.103). This would be a bizarre beginning for the Shroud. It means that Jesus Christ would have pressed his naked body against the cloth to make the full body image which now appears on the Shroud of Turin before sending it to King Abgar V. of Edessa. Additionally, Jesus, when corresponding with the King Abgar V., would have been assumed to be alive and well. So Jesus would have had to send an image of himself flagellated, crowned with the crown of thorns, speared in the side, and ultimate crucified, AND NAKED, to the King. WHY WOULD THAT BE?!
The to account for the over hundred years between the Shroud's disappearance and reappearance in Lirey in 1357. Mr. Wilcox creates this elaborate 'probability' that the Knights of Templar were responsible for its transportation and hiding place(s). And, as is always the case in his writing of this book, whenever he establishes the slightest possibility that some event took place, he goes on to treat it as fact. This kind of bad research and bad logic made this book unbearable.
I have no doubt that Mr. Wilcox is a religious man, and probably a nice guy too; but he shouldn't be distributing jumbled half truths and claiming that he was being a journalist.
The Kirlian photographs, a glaring example, have been demonstrated to have captured “corona discharge”, a phenomenon that occurs “when one of two conducting surfaces (such as electrodes) of differing voltages has a pointed shape, resulting in a highly concentrated electric field at its tip that ionizes the air (or other gas) around it”. I am not a science person, yet Mr. Wilcox's explanations read terribly shaky to me including mystical (“aura” (p.154) and pseudo-scientific language (“bio-radiation” [p.154]). So I looked it up. I got the definition from merriam-webster's online dictionary. All he had to do, as an INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALIST, is do the same. By 2010, the fact that Semyon Kirlian had accidentally discovered “corona discharge” rather than miraculously captured on film the aura of living things was already a well-established fact; why the author fails to clarify this is beyond me.
He had the audacity of claiming in the introduction that he has no intention of leading the reader to one conclusion or another, yet he lists a completely imagined account of resurrection side by side with other shoddy evidence that he has gathered. He goes so far as to explicitly say that he believes the Shroud is more than probably real at the very end. What kind of investigative journalist does that?
This book should infuriate anyone who is interested in the Truth. The science does not add up. He holds a skeptical attitude towards carbon-14 dating. In his introduction of the subject, he calls carbon 14 dating “a fairly new scientific method” that can “determine—usually, but not always with a great deal of accuracy—the amount of Carbon 14 left in an object” (p.159). This is patently false. Carbon Dating is widely accepted in all the fields of science where it is found applicable. Though there are limitations on the technology, those limitations do not impact the dating of the Shroud because the 2,000 years is WELL within the range of accurate returns. In introducing Dr. Willard Libby, Wilcox failed to mention that Dr. Libby was head of the research team that created the radiocarbon dating method, implicitly undermining his grasp of the technology. As for radiocarbon-dating being a "fairly new method" and therefore somehow inherently suspect, Dr. Libby received the “Research Corporation Award for 1951 for the radiocarbon dating technique” according to the Nobel Prize website, proving the early recognition for the importance and viability of this method within the scientific community. Furthermore, the technique has withstood the test of time though the sciences are extremely self-critical and always self-correcting in their discipline.
And if that didn't convince the reader that the results are suspect, Mr. Wilcox goes on to document criticism of the sample selection and suspicion of repair or contamination. . The first claim comes from “Dr. Eugenia Nitowski, a Holu Land archaeologist and Utah-based Catholic nun” who believes that shroud’s exposure to countless people, candle smoke and direct sun, fibers from other fabrics, the fire of 1532, water and more may have contaminated the sample (p.196). The truth is that none of these interactions and exposures have the ability to change the molecular structure of the atoms of the Shroud. Save for fire, except that it requires the fire to totally consume the Shroud. Wilcox went on to add that the “1532 fire alone could have changed the carbon content [of the Shroud]”, which is patently untrue (p.196). Then the textile expert John Tyler was quoted claiming that “moisture in the cloth would have turned to steam. Contaminants would have dissolved ‘and been forced not only into the weave and yarn, but also into the [individual linen] fibers” (197). This again was scientifically baseless conjecture. The dating technique would return a variety of values in this case and all of the contaminants that showed up inadvertently will be so far dated from the believed age of the Shroud as to have been discounted in the process. Finally, “Dr. Alan Adler, a chemist and member of STURP”, Wilcox wrote, “wrote that mixed material like that which they believed the shroud contained (cotton from the sixteenth century and linen 2,000 years old) would return a 1210 AD date of origin, very close to the mean date of 1200 AD given by the three labs testing in 1988” (p.214). This was, once more, a completely false claim. Because however skilled the supposed repairer was at creating a seamless blend between the original fabric and the added patch, the supposed repairer has no way of blended the two molecularly. Had the Shroud of Turin been repaired previously, and the sample representative of the repair and the original, then carbon 14 dating would reveal two distinct values for each date of origin.
Worse than this, some of the 'experts' he consults are straight up ESP-experts, and he delves into all sorts of pseudo-sciences like parapsychology, identology and others. That kind of S%%T has no place in serious journalist unless it's a historical piece on those nutjobs.
The history of the Shroud as Mr. Wilcox believes to have unfolded, simply canNOT be. He claims that “the imprinted clotht is old, at least 600 years old as the ‘shroud of Turin,’ probably nearly 2,000 years old as the ‘Image of Edessa.’ (p.185). Wilcox fairly proved that the Image of Edessa COULD have been a full body print as is the Shroud of Turin as much as it could have been the much-rumored facial print alone. As far as the ORIGIN of the Image of Edessa, he cites only a legend. Wilcox wrote, “they say that when an early king of Edessa, Abgar V, became mortally ill, he sent for Jesus, the miracle-worker he had heard about”. He continues that “Jesus did not go to the king himself; instead he pressed a cloth to his face, miraculously leaving his image on it, and sent it back with the king’s messenger” (p.103). This would be a bizarre beginning for the Shroud. It means that Jesus Christ would have pressed his naked body against the cloth to make the full body image which now appears on the Shroud of Turin before sending it to King Abgar V. of Edessa. Additionally, Jesus, when corresponding with the King Abgar V., would have been assumed to be alive and well. So Jesus would have had to send an image of himself flagellated, crowned with the crown of thorns, speared in the side, and ultimate crucified, AND NAKED, to the King. WHY WOULD THAT BE?!
The to account for the over hundred years between the Shroud's disappearance and reappearance in Lirey in 1357. Mr. Wilcox creates this elaborate 'probability' that the Knights of Templar were responsible for its transportation and hiding place(s). And, as is always the case in his writing of this book, whenever he establishes the slightest possibility that some event took place, he goes on to treat it as fact. This kind of bad research and bad logic made this book unbearable.
I have no doubt that Mr. Wilcox is a religious man, and probably a nice guy too; but he shouldn't be distributing jumbled half truths and claiming that he was being a journalist.
April 15, 2022
The Truth About the Shroud of Turin is much more thorough that I was expecting. It goes into depth about the history of "Shroud study" from the time the first photos of the Shroud were made. I have always been fascinated by the Shroud of Turin and I actually saw it in 1998. I attended a webinar hosted by the Museum of the Bible in 2021 as part of their "Who Do You Say I Am" exhibit on the history of the Shroud. With all of that background, I had never heard about much of the study and controversy that were shared in this book. Some of it was fascinating and some of it was rather dry. Overall the book is a great source of information on the Shroud and it is a good place to start if you want to learn more about the Shroud of Turin.
July 7, 2010
I've always been fascinated by the Shroud of Turin. This book goes through of a lot of the history of the shroud in the past century or so, and the scientific testing which has been done to prove or disprove its claim to be the shroud of Jesus. It's interesting how science is not so cut-and-dried, and what was thought to be the truth a few years ago is now being questioned.
November 16, 2025
I ordinarily do not write many reviews, but I found this author's lack of knowledge and baseless assertions to be so mind-boggling maddening and infuriating that I have to admit I was enraged by the final ending paragraphs, which meander into meaningless drivel.
My review is primarily based upon the 1977 version of this book, entitled "Shroud" which I found at my local library, and I must mention, with some fervor, that this author is utterly incompetent at what he does. Not only does he begin his book admonishing readers to "not follow in the shameful footsteps of those who doubted the shroud" while claiming impartiality. He also makes numerous spurious at best claims regarding the authenticity of the shroud.
Then he proceeds to go on to explain why he believes Jesus went nuclear or some other form of powerful radiation upon his resurrection. He follows that up with biblical fanfiction, which does not even hold up theologically, much less scientifically, in which Jesus turns into a nuclear blast, sends the tomb flying and transmutes into a blast of light, leaving his countenance seared into the cloth.
Despite this obvious foolery, he presents his work as though he was an academic and genuinally seeking in depth the truth of the matter, when he is nothing more than psudeo-scientific hack intent on pushing forth his own foolish and antiquated agenda.
My review is primarily based upon the 1977 version of this book, entitled "Shroud" which I found at my local library, and I must mention, with some fervor, that this author is utterly incompetent at what he does. Not only does he begin his book admonishing readers to "not follow in the shameful footsteps of those who doubted the shroud" while claiming impartiality. He also makes numerous spurious at best claims regarding the authenticity of the shroud.
Then he proceeds to go on to explain why he believes Jesus went nuclear or some other form of powerful radiation upon his resurrection. He follows that up with biblical fanfiction, which does not even hold up theologically, much less scientifically, in which Jesus turns into a nuclear blast, sends the tomb flying and transmutes into a blast of light, leaving his countenance seared into the cloth.
Despite this obvious foolery, he presents his work as though he was an academic and genuinally seeking in depth the truth of the matter, when he is nothing more than psudeo-scientific hack intent on pushing forth his own foolish and antiquated agenda.
April 2, 2024
Don't read this if you want a fair and unbiased discussion of the shroud. Wilcox waits until the end to say that he believes, but it his bias is clear early on. A lot of what he emphasizes are fringe theories dressed in scientific vestments. A better approach would be to let the skeptics' arguments balance out the believers' and let the reader decide on his or her own instead of being led to a position. There is some fascinating stuff here, but it is disingenuous to pass all of it off as equal in value. This is another example of trying to prove something that can only be known through faith.
May 14, 2023
Incredibly fun to read the original edition of this and then go straight to Wikipedia and see all of its major arguments had been debunked within the next decade and then come on here and find he’s still reprinting the book basically unchanged lol
Anyway: contained exactly the kind of mysticism and flights of fancy I had hoped for when picking it up from the thrift store. Fun stuff!
Anyway: contained exactly the kind of mysticism and flights of fancy I had hoped for when picking it up from the thrift store. Fun stuff!
December 3, 2017
Really interesting read and presents a scientifically sound theory for the authenticity of The Shroud. Well-researched, not rooted in mere Faith ( if that's okay to say about a book about Christ...) and made me feel hopeful.
November 9, 2018
Fascinating review of the major evidence for and against, surrounding the shroud of Turin. I deduct one star for his too eager acceptance of theories that have not been proven, however, these instances do not substantially affect the validity of his overall conclusion.
October 7, 2025
This is not for someone who has a casual, passing interest in such topics. I thought, "Might as well learn something!" but it was too much. Not the book's fault, exactly, that I tired of it so early on, but if you're wondering if it has widespread appeal, I find it did not.
March 19, 2022
A very interesting read about a very interesting subject. I am not in any way religious but I did enjoy reading about this historical event.
April 12, 2022
It was a compelling read that lost a little steam about 3/4 of the way in. I was very interested to hear all the connecting historical proofs for the stroud.
May 23, 2023
Fascinating book. Covers history and investigations into the shroud.
July 17, 2024
Easy, Engaging Read, But No Pictures
How can you have a book about the Shroud of Turin with entire chapters on the photography taken of it for over a century and not include them?
How can you have a book about the Shroud of Turin with entire chapters on the photography taken of it for over a century and not include them?
September 26, 2017
An enigma. Controversial. Fascinating.
July 1, 2025
A POPULAR SUMMARY (from 1977) BY A JOURNALIST/WRITER
Robert K. Wilcox is a journalist and former religion editor of the Miami News, who has written many other books, such as 'The Truth About the Shroud of Turin: Solving the Mystery,' 'Target: Patton: The Plot to Assassinate General George S. Patton,' etc.
He wrote in the Preface to this 1977 book, "Is the Shroud of Turin... a medieval forgery, an occult phenomenon, a proof of Jesus' resurrection? To answer this question, I traveled halfway around the world to interview sindonologists, sindonophiles, and just plain shroud quacks, and to consult specialists in the half-dozen sciences touching upon the shroud... Before you accept or reject the shroud, meet the people I've interviewed; weigh the evidence encountered in books, journals and magazines; examine the photographs of the shroud... then, and only then, will you be able to decide for yourself..." (Pg. ix, xi)
He notes, "The flagellation marks that the robe or tunic would have covered---back, chest, upper arms---appear smudged on the shroud; whereas the marks that were not touched by the tunic---lower arms and legs, the face---appear decidedly more distinct. This phenomenon is especially visible... on the shoulders, where, all sindonologists agree, the man in the shroud carried a heavy, rough beam." (Pg. 40-41)
Wilcox interviewed Hans Naber, who recalled, "Corpses don't bleed. And then I realized that there was my proof. The body in the shroud was covered with blood! Yet corpses don't bleed! The body must not have been a corpse..." (Pg. 64) However, Wilcox later quotes a pathologist who said, "a short stab wound or cut on the back of the scalp comparable with the wounds made by the crown of thorns... or indeed a cut into any dependent part, will bleed freely, continuously, unimpeded by any of the natural mechanisms such as spasm of blood vessel or clotting of the blood which in the living would tend to arrest bleeding." (Pg. 69)
He states that "the [1969] reports, while not ruling out the possibility that the cloth contained particles of ancient blood matter, said that preliminary results from the testing of several threads indicated there was no blood." (Pg. 175)
There are later and more detailed studies of the Shroud, of course (including Wilcox's own update), but his lively and interesting writing style make this of considerable interest to anyone seriously studying the Shroud.
Robert K. Wilcox is a journalist and former religion editor of the Miami News, who has written many other books, such as 'The Truth About the Shroud of Turin: Solving the Mystery,' 'Target: Patton: The Plot to Assassinate General George S. Patton,' etc.
He wrote in the Preface to this 1977 book, "Is the Shroud of Turin... a medieval forgery, an occult phenomenon, a proof of Jesus' resurrection? To answer this question, I traveled halfway around the world to interview sindonologists, sindonophiles, and just plain shroud quacks, and to consult specialists in the half-dozen sciences touching upon the shroud... Before you accept or reject the shroud, meet the people I've interviewed; weigh the evidence encountered in books, journals and magazines; examine the photographs of the shroud... then, and only then, will you be able to decide for yourself..." (Pg. ix, xi)
He notes, "The flagellation marks that the robe or tunic would have covered---back, chest, upper arms---appear smudged on the shroud; whereas the marks that were not touched by the tunic---lower arms and legs, the face---appear decidedly more distinct. This phenomenon is especially visible... on the shoulders, where, all sindonologists agree, the man in the shroud carried a heavy, rough beam." (Pg. 40-41)
Wilcox interviewed Hans Naber, who recalled, "Corpses don't bleed. And then I realized that there was my proof. The body in the shroud was covered with blood! Yet corpses don't bleed! The body must not have been a corpse..." (Pg. 64) However, Wilcox later quotes a pathologist who said, "a short stab wound or cut on the back of the scalp comparable with the wounds made by the crown of thorns... or indeed a cut into any dependent part, will bleed freely, continuously, unimpeded by any of the natural mechanisms such as spasm of blood vessel or clotting of the blood which in the living would tend to arrest bleeding." (Pg. 69)
He states that "the [1969] reports, while not ruling out the possibility that the cloth contained particles of ancient blood matter, said that preliminary results from the testing of several threads indicated there was no blood." (Pg. 175)
There are later and more detailed studies of the Shroud, of course (including Wilcox's own update), but his lively and interesting writing style make this of considerable interest to anyone seriously studying the Shroud.
July 30, 2011
Don't let the title fool you. In no way, shape or form does Wilcox reveal the TRUTH about the Shroud of Turin. What he does, however, is to present facts supporting and negating the artifact as the actual burial cloth of Jesus Christ. Wilcox, a journalist, has been studying the Shroud since the early 1970s and has even spent time with the holy relic. The evidence he has amassed could rival that of any scholar. In the end, he is able to carefully debunk any theory that purports the relic to be a fake. He even cites evidence that the carbon-14 dating that took place in the late 1980s was a shoddy sample from a piece of the shroud that has been re-woven. While he isn't able to absolutely prove the miracle image of the shroud, he suggests in the end that it's a matter of faith... that's good enough for me. Well researched, well written and a perfect contemplative read for the Easter holiday.
February 11, 2012
Worth a quick scan for those unfamiliar with the Shroud’s history, particularly the chapters that speculate as to the Shroud’s whereabouts prior to its appearance in historical records in the 14th century, but seek no great revelations here. My full review is available here.
May 8, 2012
Nice info & shroud history
October 7, 2016
Love this book
Displaying 1 - 19 of 19 reviews