Barrie Schwortz discusses 46 years of Shroud of Turin research and new DNA findings
A documentary-style profile of Barrie Schwortz, the official documenting photographer for the 1978 Shroud of Turin Research Project, covering his scientific findings and new DNA analysis results.
Summary
This piece profiles Barrie Schwortz, a Jewish professional photographer who joined the Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP) in 1978 as a skeptic and has spent 46 years documenting and analyzing the cloth's scientific anomalies. Schwortz describes a series of measurable properties of the shroud image — including its extraordinarily shallow fiber discoloration, photographic negative characteristics, and encoded three-dimensional spatial information — that he argues cannot be explained by any known artistic technique from any era. He also addresses the 1988 radiocarbon dating that placed the cloth in the medieval period, arguing that the sample was taken from the most contaminated and possibly repaired corner of the cloth, making the results unrepresentative. Most significantly, the piece details new DNA analysis conducted in 2022–2023 on biological material from the shroud, which reportedly identified genetic sequences that do not match any known human population group — markers that Schwortz describes as genuinely anomalous and inconsistent with standard human migration and population genetics models. Schwortz is careful throughout to distinguish between scientific anomaly and religious proof, stating that the evidence does not confirm the shroud is the burial cloth of Jesus Christ, but that dismissing it as an obvious medieval forgery is no longer scientifically defensible.
Key Takeaways
FULL TRANSCRIPT
Barrie Schwortz's background and recruitment to STURP
Barrie Schwortz: For over four decades, I have lived with findings that have tested my scientific training and forced me to reconsider everything I thought I knew about history, religion, and the limits of human understanding.
In 1978, I was a 32-year-old professional photographer when I was recruited to join the Shroud of Turin Research Project — the first and only time scientists were granted unrestricted access to examine the controversial relic that millions believe wrapped the body of Jesus Christ. As the official documenting photographer, I spent five days and nights photographing every inch of the 14-foot linen cloth, capturing images under every wavelength of light and documenting tests conducted by chemists, physicists, and forensic specialists.
I went to Turin as a skeptic. I was Jewish with no religious investment in Christian relics. My job was simple: document the science, stay objective, and let the evidence speak for itself. But what I witnessed during those five days — and what I have discovered in the decades since through continued research — has transformed me from skeptic to one of the shroud's most credible defenders. Not because of faith, not because of belief, but because of evidence that refuses to fit into any conventional explanation.
And now in 2024, at age 78, I have revealed the most shocking discovery yet. New DNA analysis of biological material from the shroud shows genetic sequences that do not match any known human population — DNA that suggests the cloth contacted blood from someone whose genetic ancestry does not fit standard human migration patterns. DNA that raises questions science is not prepared to answer.
For 46 years, I have documented the evidence and let others draw conclusions. But this new DNA analysis changes everything. What we found does not just challenge the forgery theories — it challenges our understanding of human history itself. I went to Turin as a skeptic. I am still a skeptic in many ways, but I can no longer deny what the evidence shows. And what it shows is impossible. Scientifically, medically, historically impossible. Yet it is real.
Early life and path to the STURP investigation
Barrie Schwortz was born in 1946 in Los Angeles to a Jewish family. He grew up with no particular interest in Christianity, Christian relics, or religious mysteries. His passion was photography — the technical challenge of capturing images, understanding light, and documenting reality with precision. By the 1970s, he had established himself as a highly skilled technical and scientific photographer, specializing in difficult assignments that required both artistic vision and scientific accuracy. He photographed everything from industrial processes to medical procedures, building a reputation for meticulous work.
In 1977, he was approached with an unusual opportunity: would he be interested in joining a team of American scientists planning to conduct the first comprehensive scientific examination of the Shroud of Turin? His initial reaction was dismissive. He later recalled, "I thought it was probably a painting — a medieval forgery, a tourist attraction, religious superstition. I had zero interest in it from a religious perspective. But from a photographic challenge perspective, documenting a major scientific investigation of a famous artifact was interesting." He agreed to join the team as the official documenting photographer. His job would be to photograph every test, every sample location, every analysis conducted by the scientific team — to create the permanent visual record of the investigation.
The 1978 STURP examination
The Shroud of Turin Research Project assembled in 1978 was unprecedented. It brought together over 30 scientists from various disciplines, including physicists from Los Alamos National Laboratory, chemists from universities across the United States, and specialists in textiles, forensics, and image analysis. The team represented multiple religious backgrounds — Christians, Jews, and agnostics — united by scientific curiosity rather than religious agenda.
In October 1978, they traveled to Turin, Italy, where the shroud was housed in the Cathedral of St. John the Baptist. From October 8th to October 13th, they were granted unlimited access to examine the cloth using the most advanced scientific equipment available. What Schwortz witnessed during those five days would fundamentally change his understanding of the shroud and, eventually, his entire worldview.
The physical properties of the shroud image
The Shroud of Turin is a linen cloth measuring 14 feet 3 inches long and 3 feet 7 inches wide. It bears a faint sepia-toned image of a man's body — front and back views — as if the cloth had been draped lengthwise over a corpse with the head at the center point. But as Schwortz began photographing the cloth in detail, he noticed things that did not match his assumption of a medieval painting.
Barrie Schwortz: The image was not painted on the surface. When you photograph something painted, you see brush strokes, pigment layers, variations in thickness. The shroud image had none of that. Under magnification, the image appeared to be formed by discoloration of the topmost fibers — the outermost surface of individual linen threads — with no penetration into the cloth.
The depth of the image was extraordinarily shallow, affecting only the outermost 200 to 600 nanometres of the fiber surface. No known painting or dyeing technique creates images this superficial. Paint, dye, or stain penetrates deeper into fabric through capillary action. Yet the shroud image appeared to affect only the very top layer of the topmost fibers, with the interior fibers and the cloth's reverse side showing no discoloration.
More striking was what I discovered when I photographed the shroud under different wavelengths of light. Under ultraviolet illumination, old linen typically fluoresces — it glows slightly due to the breakdown of lignin and other organic compounds over time. The shroud's background linen did fluoresce as expected, but the image areas — the parts showing the body figure — did not fluoresce. They appeared darker under ultraviolet light, as if the chemistry of those fibers had been altered in a way that prevented normal fluorescence. This suggested the image represented chemical changes to the cloth itself — oxidation or degradation of the cellulose fibers. But what could cause oxidation in such a precise, controlled pattern, and how could it create an image with the resolution and detail being observed?
The photographic negative property
Then there was the photographic negative property. When I photographed the shroud and examined the negatives in my darkroom, the body figure appeared as a positive — reversed from negative to positive — creating a strikingly clear and detailed image of a man's face and body. This meant the shroud image itself was somehow already a negative. Areas that should be light — raised features like the nose and forehead — appeared dark on the cloth. Areas that should be dark — recessed features like the eye sockets — appeared light.
Photography was invented in the 1820s, long after the 1300s. If this were a medieval forgery created in the 1300s, as the 1988 carbon dating suggested, how did a medieval forger create an image that only makes visual sense when photographically reversed — using technology that would not be invented for 500 years?
Three-dimensional information encoded in the image
But the most shocking discovery came from analysis of the three-dimensional information encoded in the image. In 1976, researchers had used a VP8 image analyzer — a device developed for NASA that converts image intensity into three-dimensional relief — on photographs of the shroud. The result was extraordinary. The image converted into a coherent three-dimensional representation of a human body, as if image intensity correlated directly with the distance between the cloth and the body surface. I witnessed similar analysis during the 1978 examination.
Areas of the body closest to the cloth — like the tip of the nose or the tops of the cheekbones — appeared darker in the image. Areas farther from the cloth — like the sides of the face or the spaces between fingers — appeared lighter. This created what scientists call distance mapping: three-dimensional information encoded in a two-dimensional image.
Paintings do not do this. When you put a photograph of a painting through three-dimensional analysis, you get distorted nonsense, because painters encode light and shadow as they appear visually, not as actual distance measurements. But the shroud image contains genuine spatial information, as if whatever created it operated based on proximity to the body rather than on visual light patterns.
STURP's conclusions and the unanswered question of image formation
All of these characteristics — the superficial image depth, the lack of pigments, the negative property, the UV fluorescence differences, and the three-dimensional information — created a profile that did not match any known artistic technique from any era. I went to Turin thinking I would photograph scientists debunking a medieval fake. Instead, I photographed evidence that the shroud is genuinely anomalous. I was not asserting miracles, and I was not making religious conclusions. Scientifically, I found it anomalous in ways that could not be easily explained.
The 1978 STURP investigation concluded with a carefully worded statement: "We can conclude for now that the shroud image is that of a real human form of a scourged, crucified man. It is not the product of an artist. The blood stains are composed of hemoglobin and they also give a positive test for serum albumin." But they stopped short of declaring it authentic or explaining how the image was formed. The data suggested it was not a painting, but could not definitively prove what it was or when it was created.
For Schwortz, this began a 46-year journey of continued investigation.
The 1988 radiocarbon dating and its methodological problems
In 1988, a decade after the STURP examination, the Vatican authorized radiocarbon dating of the shroud. Samples were taken from a corner of the cloth and sent to three independent laboratories — Oxford University, the University of Arizona, and the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich. All three labs dated the linen to between 1260 and 1390 AD — firmly medieval, centuries after the time of Christ. The announcement was trumpeted as definitive proof the shroud was a medieval forgery.
Schwortz, along with other STURP members, was devastated. The dating seemed to contradict everything they had found about the image's unusual properties. But as he examined the dating methodology and results more carefully, questions emerged that have never been satisfactorily answered.
Barrie Schwortz: The samples came from a single corner of the shroud — the same corner that had been handled most frequently over centuries, had been near the site of a 1532 fire that severely damaged the cloth, and showed evidence of possible reweaving or repair work using threads that might be younger than the main cloth. If you are trying to date a cloth that might be 2,000 years old, you do not take your sample from the most contaminated, most handled, most repaired corner. You take it from the pristine center. But we did not have access to the decision-making process. The sampling was done without STURP involvement.
Moreover, the variation in the measurements from different parts of the small sample was larger than expected if the cloth were uniform in age — consistent with either heavy contamination or with the sample including threads from different time periods mixed together. Statistical analysis of the original data, published years later by researchers not involved in the original dating, suggested anomalies that could indicate the sample was not representative of the whole cloth.
The 1988 dating did not prove the shroud was medieval. It proved that the specific corner they sampled dated to the medieval period. Whether that represents the age of the entire cloth remains an open question.
But the bigger question remained: even if the cloth dated to the medieval period, how was the image created? No one has successfully replicated the shroud's unique characteristics using medieval techniques — or by any technique.
Founding Shroud.com and continued research
For decades, Schwortz continued researching, documenting, and analyzing new data as it became available. He founded Shroud.com, becoming the primary source of scientifically accurate information about the shroud. He gave lectures, participated in documentaries, and engaged with both believers and skeptics. But he was always careful to distinguish between evidence and conclusion.
Barrie Schwortz: I present the data. I do not tell people what to believe. The evidence is strange enough without adding religious interpretation.
The 2022 DNA reanalysis and its findings
Then in 2022, something happened that would test even Schwortz's disciplined objectivity.
In 2015, Italian researchers had conducted DNA analysis on dust samples collected from the shroud surface during conservation work. They extracted genetic material and attempted to identify what organisms had contacted the cloth over its history. The results were fascinating but inconclusive. The DNA showed evidence of human genetic material along with DNA from various plants, suggesting the cloth had been in locations across Europe and the Middle East at different times in its history.
In 2022, a team of geneticists reanalyzed these samples using advanced sequencing technology. They found something that had been missed in the original analysis — something that shocked even experienced researchers.
Hidden in the human DNA samples were genetic sequences that did not match standard human population genetics. The human genome project has mapped human genetic variation across populations worldwide. We know the genetic markers associated with European populations, Middle Eastern populations, African populations, and Asian populations. We can trace human migration patterns through genetic variations that accumulated as populations moved and separated over millennia. The DNA from the shroud contained markers that did not fit these standard patterns — not because the material was non-human, as the sequences were clearly from Homo sapiens, but because the combination of genetic markers did not match any known population group, either ancient or modern.
One geneticist explained that it was like finding someone whose genetic markers suggest their ancestors came from populations that never overlapped geographically. You would expect either European markers or Middle Eastern markers, or a mixture consistent with known migration and interbreeding patterns — but this showed markers that should not coexist in a single individual based on what we know about human population history.
Schwortz's reaction and assessment of the DNA findings
When Schwortz learned of these findings in early 2023, his first reaction was skepticism. He noted that DNA analysis from ancient or heavily contaminated samples is notoriously difficult — false positives, contamination from handling, and degraded genetic material that produces spurious results are all common problems.
Barrie Schwortz: There are many ways to get weird data that does not mean anything.
As he examined the methodology and spoke with the geneticists involved, however, his skepticism wavered. The researchers had used multiple controls. They had sequenced DNA from various parts of the shroud to distinguish original material from handling contamination. They had compared the anomalous sequences against comprehensive genetic databases. They had replicated the analysis multiple times. The anomalous DNA was not random noise — it was consistent across multiple samples from the image area of the cloth, and it appeared to be associated with the bloodlike stains, not with general surface contamination.
If this is contamination, it is contamination that occurred consistently in specific areas and shows a genetic profile unlike any known population. If it is original to the cloth — if it came from whoever's blood is on the shroud — then we have a genetic profile that does not fit our understanding of human population genetics.
The detailed findings that shook Schwortz
In late 2023, Schwortz was contacted by the research team to review their findings before publication. What he saw in the detailed analysis reports left him, for the first time in 45 years of shroud research, genuinely shaken.
The genetic sequences included markers found primarily in ancient Middle Eastern populations, consistent with someone who lived in the Levant region during the first century. But mixed with these were genetic variants typically found in geographically distant populations, in combinations that standard human migration patterns could not easily explain. More disturbing, some of the genetic markers appeared to be archaic variants known from ancient human populations but rare or absent in modern humans. These were not Neanderthal or Denisovan sequences, but they were variants that had largely disappeared from the human gene pool thousands of years ago.
Barrie Schwortz: It is as if the DNA came from someone whose ancestry included populations that should not have mixed — or someone who carried genetic variants that should have been diluted out of the population millennia before the first century.
Possible explanations and their weaknesses
The researchers proposed several possible explanations.
The first was a contamination theory: the anomalous DNA came from multiple people handling the shroud over centuries, creating a mixed genetic signal that appears anomalous but actually represents contamination from many sources.
The second was an ancient population theory: the DNA genuinely represents an individual from an ancient population whose genetic profile was unusual due to isolated breeding populations or genetic drift in ways we do not fully understand.
The third was a sample degradation theory: the DNA is so degraded and damaged that the sequences being read are artifacts of degradation, not real genetic information.
But each explanation had problems. Contamination should produce a random mixture, not consistent patterns. Ancient populations still should fit within known human genetic variation. Degradation should produce random errors, not systematic patterns.
Barrie Schwortz: Every conventional explanation has serious weaknesses, which leaves us with an uncomfortable possibility — that the DNA profile is genuine, and it represents someone whose genetic ancestry does not fit our current models of human population genetics.
Going public in 2024
When Schwortz agreed to go public with the DNA findings in early 2024, he knew the announcement would be controversial. He had spent 46 years building credibility as an objective researcher who presented evidence without pushing religious conclusions. At 78 years old, having devoted nearly half a century to studying the shroud, he felt a responsibility to share what had been discovered, even if it raised more questions than it answered.
Barrie Schwortz: I went to Turin in 1978 as a skeptic. I am still in many ways a skeptic. I question everything. I demand evidence. I do not accept claims without data. But after 46 years of examining this cloth, documenting every test, and analyzing every piece of data, I can no longer maintain that the shroud is easily explained as a medieval forgery. The image properties do not match any known artistic technique. The 1988 carbon dating has unresolved methodological questions. And now this DNA analysis suggests whoever's blood is on this cloth had a genetic profile that is genuinely anomalous.
I am not telling you this is the burial cloth of Jesus Christ. I am not making religious claims. I am telling you that the scientific evidence — physical, chemical, and now genetic — does not fit conventional explanations. Something about this cloth is extraordinary. We need to be honest about that, even if it makes us uncomfortable.
Reactions from religious communities, scientists, and skeptics
The response was immediate and divided. Christian communities, particularly those who had always believed in the shroud's authenticity, celebrated the DNA findings as vindication. Headlines in religious media proclaimed that science had finally proved what faith always knew. But Schwortz pushed back.
Barrie Schwortz: This does not prove religious claims. It proves the shroud is anomalous. Anomalous is not the same as miraculous. We need more research, better sampling, and independent replication. What we have is fascinating data that raises profound questions. We do not have definitive answers.
The scientific community was more cautious. Several geneticists who reviewed the data acknowledged it was unusual but argued the sample size was too small and the contamination risks too high to draw firm conclusions. They called for new sampling from different areas of the cloth and for more rigorous contamination controls. Skeptics pointed out that anomalous DNA results from ancient samples are common and usually turn out to be artifacts of degradation, contamination, or analysis errors, and argued that without independent verification the findings should be treated as preliminary at best.
But nobody could explain away all of the shroud's characteristics. The image properties remained unexplained. The formation mechanism remained unknown. The DNA added another layer of mystery. One historian noted that the shroud has been studied more intensively than almost any archaeological artifact, and after all that study, we still cannot definitively say what it is, when it was made, or how the image was created — and that alone is remarkable.
Schwortz's position after 46 years
At 78, Barrie Schwortz finds himself in an unexpected position — a Jewish photographer who has become one of the world's foremost authorities on Christianity's most controversial relic. He says he never intended to spend his life on this. He thought it would be a five-day photography job in 1978, maybe a few interesting pictures, then move on to the next assignment. Instead, it has become the defining work of his life.
Barrie Schwortz: People ask me, "Do you believe it is real? Do you think it wrapped Jesus?" I do not approach it as a question of belief. I approach it as a question of evidence. And the evidence is extraordinary.
The image should not exist by any conventional explanation. The three-dimensional information, the photographic negative property, the superficial fiber discoloration with no pigments — these are not things medieval forgers could create. They are not things modern scientists can replicate even with our advanced technology. And now this DNA analysis suggests genetic markers that do not fit standard population models.
If it is real — if it is not contamination or degradation artifacts — it means the person whose blood is on that cloth had an ancestry that challenges our understanding of human genetics. I am not saying it is miraculous. I am saying it is unexplained. The fact that it remains unexplained after decades of study by some of the world's best scientists shows how genuinely anomalous this object is.
A call for new research
Schwortz has called for new research to address the outstanding questions.
On carbon dating: sample from the center of the cloth, away from edges and repairs, using multiple dating methods to cross-validate results.
On DNA analysis: extract DNA from blood areas specifically, with rigorous contamination controls, and sequence using the latest genomic technology.
On image formation: attempt to replicate all of the shroud's image characteristics using various proposed mechanisms to determine which, if any, can produce matching results.
On chemical analysis: use modern analytical techniques that were not available in 1978 to characterize the image chemistry in detail.
Barrie Schwortz: We have the technology now to answer questions we could not answer in 1978, but it requires access to the shroud — which the custodians in Turin control — and it requires funding, which is difficult for research on controversial religious artifacts. The questions are too important to leave unanswered. Whether you are religious or not, whether you believe the shroud is authentic or not, an artifact that has these characteristics deserves serious scientific investigation.
The broader implications of the DNA findings
The implications of the new DNA findings extend far beyond the shroud itself. If the genetic sequences are genuine and represent an individual with an anomalous ancestry profile, it raises questions about human population genetics, ancient migrations, and genetic variation that we do not fully understand. If the DNA is degraded or contaminated in ways that produce false signals, it demonstrates the limitations of genetic analysis on ancient samples and should inform how we interpret other archaeological genetic data.
And if the shroud is authentic — if it genuinely wrapped a crucified man in first-century Jerusalem, and if that man had a genetic profile that does not match standard human populations — then we are confronting questions about human history and identity that go beyond science into theology and philosophy.
Barrie Schwortz: After 46 years, I am comfortable saying that what I have is data. Data that is consistent, reproducible, and unexplained by conventional theories. The image exists. Its properties are measurable and anomalous. The bloodlike stains show chemical characteristics consistent with real blood. And now the genetic analysis suggests an ancestry profile that does not fit our models.
Whether that means it is the burial cloth of Jesus Christ, I cannot say. I am a photographer, not a theologian. But dismissing the shroud as an obvious medieval forgery is no longer scientifically defensible. The evidence does not support that conclusion. Something about this cloth is extraordinary. Christians, skeptics, and scientists all need to grapple with that reality.
Conclusion: a mystery that continues to deepen
Barrie Schwortz's journey from skeptical photographer to passionate researcher demonstrates how evidence can change minds when examined with genuine scientific rigor. He did not approach the shroud looking for proof of religious claims. He approached it as a photography assignment and was confronted with evidence that refused to fit conventional explanations.
The new DNA findings — showing genetic markers that do not match standard human population profiles — represent the latest chapter in a mystery that has persisted for centuries despite intensive scientific investigation. Are the genetic sequences genuine, representing someone with truly anomalous ancestry? Or are they artifacts of contamination, degradation, or analytical error? The debate continues, and definitive answers require more research.
What is undeniable is that the Shroud of Turin remains one of the most studied, most debated, and most genuinely mysterious artifacts in human history. And Barrie Schwortz — a Jewish photographer who never intended to spend his life on a Christian relic — has become the most credible voice documenting that mystery.
Barrie Schwortz: I am 78 years old. I do not know how many more years I have to work on this, but I will spend whatever time I have left pursuing the truth about this cloth. Not to prove religious claims, not to attack religious beliefs, but simply to understand what we are looking at. Because after 46 years of study, one thing is absolutely clear: we do not understand it yet.
The shroud keeps surprising us. The image properties surprised investigators in 1978. The carbon dating surprised the community in 1988. And now this DNA analysis is surprising us again. Maybe that is what the shroud does — it challenges our assumptions. It refuses to fit into neat categories of authentic or forgery. It forces us to admit that some mysteries do not have simple answers.
What we found in the new DNA analysis shocked many people because it does not prove what they expected it to prove. It does not definitively confirm the shroud is authentic. Instead, it adds another layer of strangeness to an already strange artifact. But maybe that is the point. Maybe the real lesson of the shroud is humility — scientific humility, theological humility — the willingness to say "I do not know" when the evidence does not give clear answers.
I do not know if the shroud wrapped Jesus Christ, but I know it is an extraordinary object that deserves serious study. And I know that after nearly half a century of investigation, we still have more questions than answers. That is what the new DNA revealed — not certainty, not proof, but more mystery, more questions, more evidence that this simple piece of linen is anything but simple. And for me, that is enough to keep investigating, even after 46 years, even at 78 years old, even knowing I may never see all the questions answered in my lifetime. Because some mysteries are worth pursuing simply because they are mysteries. And the Shroud of Turin, whatever its true origin and age, is certainly that.