As yet there is no direct evidence for this - or indeed any direct evidence to suggest the original radiocarbon dates are not accurate.
There is a lot of other evidence that suggests to many that the Shroud is older than the radiocarbon dates allow and so further research is certainly needed.
The Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit has been collaborating with John Jackson's team to test the reaction rates.
So far the linen samples have been subjected to normal conditions (but with very high concentrations of carbon monoxide).
While Sophisticated Theologians may argue that God is beyond all evidence, being an imperceptible and indefinable spirit that can neither be defined nor seen as interacting with the cosmos, that’s not what most believers think.There are other problems, too, including the fact that the proportions of the body are simply way out of line for a living human, strongly suggesting that the image is an artistic forgery.While religionists have raised numerous reasons why the medieval dating could be wrong—foremost among them is the claim that the dated sample was taken from a piece of cloth used to patch the shroud much later—none of these counterarguments appear credible.Only by doing this will people be able to arrive at a coherent history of the Shroud which takes into account and explains all of the available scientific and historical information.(full reference in margins) demonstrates the two ways that religion is actually a pseudoscience.