Interesting stuff. Thanks for posting it!
I guess it's a coincidence that the bacteria created a unique phenomenon, a negative image with imbedded 3D information (that wasn't discovered until the mid-70s with the use of a NASA terrain analyzer), on a shroud purported for centuries to be the burial shroud of Jesus.
Historically, the Shroud of Turin is one of some forty reputed burial cloths of Jesus, although it is the only one to bear the apparent imprints and bloodstains of a crucified man. Religious critics have long noted that the Turin shroud is incompatible with the bible, which describes multiple burial wrappings, including a separate napkin that covered Jesus face (John 20:57).
The Turin cloth first appeared in north-central France in the mid-fourteenth century. At that time the local bishop uncovered an artist who confessed he had cunningly painted the image. Subsequently, in 1389, Pope Clement VII officially declared the shroud to be only a painted representation.
Years later, this finding was conveniently forgotten by the granddaughter of the original owner. She sold it to the House of Savoy, which later became the Italian monarchy. Eventually the cloth was transferred to Turin. In 1983 Italys exiled king died, bequeathing the shroud to the Vatican.
The shrouds modern history has confirmed the assessment of the skeptical bishop and Pope Clement. Forensic tests of the blood which has remained suspiciously bright red were consistently negative, and in 1980 renowned microanalyst Walter C. McCrone determined that the image was composed of red ocher and vermilion tempera paint.
Finally in 1988 the cloth was radiocarbon dated by three independent labs using accelerator mass spectrometry. The resulting age span of circa 12601390 was given added credibility by correct dates obtained from a variety of control swatches, including Cleopatras mummy wrapping.
These findings are mutually supportive. The tempera paint indicates the image is the work of an artist, which in turn is supported by the bishops claim that an artist confessed, as well as by the prior lack of historical record. The radiocarbon date is consistent with the time of the reported artists confession. And so on.
http://www.csicop.org/articles/shroud/index2.html
His experiments are nevertheless based on a set of assumptions gleaned from the Bible and what is known historically about crucifixion. It was the preferred means of dispatching criminals in the first century AD and took as long as 72 hours to kill a man. Problem #1, Mr. Mattingly -- If the process you described is truly the origin of the image on the Shroud, then why aren't there more of them? Especially when you consider how relatively common a crucifixion was at the time.