[Swordmaker]

The book explains the early versions as well. Their theory is that the Church approached DaVinci to make a more realistic one than the obvious frauds floating around, which were an embarrassment.

I’ve read it.

Picknett and Prince offer no evidence for any of their fantastic (in the fantasy meaning of the word) claims. There are extant copies of the Shroud made before Leonardo’s birth painted by quite competent artists and they show little to no difference between what we see today. Picknett and Prince just ignore any factual evidence which shows their theories to be absolute twaddle. They just want it to be true that Da Vinci was capable of creating something that would challenge scientists of the 20th and 21st Centuries using techniques those later day experts cannot discern method, medium, or technique nor match the results with any modern method, medium, or technique which meets all the required criteria.

[Oatka]

Da Vinci was capable of creating something that would challenge scientists of the 20th and 21st Centuries using techniques those later day experts cannot discern method, medium, or technique nor match the results with any modern method, medium, or technique which meets all the required criteria.

The mysterious composition of Greek Fire comes to mind. Close but no cigar. Damascus steel was another mystery - couldn't be recreated. Then by accident, the researchers found that they had to use impure iron. Same might be with DaVinci's technique proposed by the authors. They posited that creating an image would be a good class project for some photography class.

Mebbe, mebbe not, but I've found that most "mysteries", religious or otherwise, have a facepalm explanation.