The Shroud was tested and much more far later than the 1988 “testing” by a group including Ray Dowling. I am not Catholic but a student of Scripture as well as other disciplines including digital imaging. after the shroud was damaged in a fire the edging was added to the cloth to protect the structure.
Per the activities of Dowling and others they have proved that the image is not one of tincture or paint being applied to a mere piece of cloth but one that could only be caused by Light. At the end it is a digital representation of an image that was most likely created by The Body of Christ turning into pure white light. They took the image and reverse engineered it in a way and created a physical model of the information contained in the image. All of the wounds, blood and other elements matched all of the accounts.
Last, if you look at the image that he created digitally from the data and another painted by a young girl unknown to each other name Akiane Kramarik who was born in 1994. She painted by her own hand an image of Jesus at age 8 that aligns to the shroud image
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eiq-JJpYIX8
Believe what you will, I do
God Bless
And I'm not disputing the conclusions of any of the tests. I haven't been paying that much attention and haven't done the research.
What I do know is that the author of this article, Myrah Adams, took a piece of what seems to be good faith analysis by Tristan Casabianca and misrepresented it for her own purposes.
Casabianca concluded that the claimed range of possible dates for the shroud was too narrow because of misapplied statistical analysis.
He explicitly said his analysis did not rule out a medieval origin for the shroud.
The author, apparently lacking in decency and possibly faith, felt she had to lie about what he concluded in order to smear other researchers with a claim of fraud.
Clicks are important, after all.