In 1988, carbon dating of the world's most famous Christian relic revealed that it was a mediaeval or Renaissance forgery. Yet many questions remained. How could a hoaxer of 500 or more years ago have created an image that appears so astonishingly lifelike when seen in photographic negative? How was such an image formed? And who would have dared fake the Holy Shroud of Jesus? Setting out to answer these questions, Lynn Picknett and Clive Prince discovered that the faker was none other than Leonardo da Vinci, the Renaissance artist, scientist, inventor - and hoaxer - whose innovations are acknowledged to have been centuries ahead of his time. They also reconstructed Leonardo's secret technique - becoming the first ever to recreate the Shroud image.
Now revised and updated, sensationally the new 2006 edition of Turin Shroud presents the long-lost hard evidence to link the Shroud of Turin directly with Leonardo da Vinci. Perhaps this is even his 'confession' to having faked Christianity's most sacred relic, which will astonish both believers and sceptics alike, and present a new challenge to historians of both art and photography.
In this revision of their 1994 book, London-based writers Prince and Picknett jump on the Da Vinci Code bandwagon by claiming that the face on the Turin shroud is not Jesus but Da Vinci himself. Based on their research into the carbon-dating of the Shroud and their own re-creation of the circumstances under which the Shroud could have been created, they conclude that the Shroud is man-made, comes from no earlier than the 14th century, and that Leonardo (whom they claim invented photography) used photographic technology for the basis for the painted image. For their research, the authors compared Da Vincis painting Salvator Mundi with the image on the shroud and found that it matched up perfectly with the man on the Shroud. While the authors can provide no proof that Da Vinci used his face as the model for the face on the Shroud, their research claims a never-before acknowledged connection between Leonardo and the Shroud. Unfortunately, the authors fast-paced and detailed detective work results in little more than speculation about Da Vincis relationship to the Shroud. Only slightly provocative, the book tediously searches for new clues in an old case now shrouded in indifference.