The article is IMO misleading (not that surprising considering Breitbart reputation). The shroud has been considered a fake many times - Bishop Pierre d’Arcis of Troyes was already doubting its authenticity in 1389.
From what i’ve managed to understand - there was a carbon dating attempt in the 1988 - which had to be limited - since cabon dating is a destructive process. The above mentioned study (published in Herittage in 2022) is using Wide-Angle X-ray Scattering which seems not that suited for dating, but has some advantages - much smaller size of sample and ability to test the sample repeatedly. What the study really says is how the shroud would have to be stored before it arrived to Europe in order to look today the way it looks:
The experimental results are compatible with the hypothesis that the TS is a 2000-year-old relic, as supposed by Christian tradition, under the condition that it was kept at suitable levels of average secular temperature—20.0–22.5 °C—and correlated relative humidity—75–55%—for 13 centuries of unknown history, in addition to the seven centuries of known history in Europe.
Also - unsurprisingly - there is no mention of an AI powered reconstruction in the study.
The article is IMO misleading (not that surprising considering Breitbart reputation). The shroud has been considered a fake many times - Bishop Pierre d’Arcis of Troyes was already doubting its authenticity in 1389.
From what i’ve managed to understand - there was a carbon dating attempt in the 1988 - which had to be limited - since cabon dating is a destructive process. The above mentioned study (published in Herittage in 2022) is using Wide-Angle X-ray Scattering which seems not that suited for dating, but has some advantages - much smaller size of sample and ability to test the sample repeatedly. What the study really says is how the shroud would have to be stored before it arrived to Europe in order to look today the way it looks:
Also - unsurprisingly - there is no mention of an AI powered reconstruction in the study.