Shroud authenticity is not dependent on religious faith or non-religious debunkery. Moreover, the science thus far does not support "fishiness". Quite the contrary. From the blood stains to the crucifixion wounds, the Shroud is medically amd historically sound. Moreover, its unexplained anomalies thus far defy explanation, from the microscopic thinness of the image itself to its 3-D qualities to the fact that it is a light "negative" image, which when photographed renders a strikingly positive image. It is not a primitive "camera obscura" photograph, it is not a painting, it is not a scorch. It has an extremely plausible pre-Medieval historical provenance. Its many anomalous, unexplained features automatically void the view that "the Shroud is just another relic". It is not "just another" relic, no other claimed relic matches the Shroud's striking features. And, as I said earlier, the C-14 test was sloppy, the testing was performed on a patched-on piece of cloth that was not even part of the Shroud, thus rendering the dating conclusions highly problematic. The most recent news, which the OP cited, can be found in this PDF (which, today at least, seems to be loading slowly):http://www.shroud-enigma.com/resources/The-C14-dating-of-the-Shroud---web-version.pdf
Some other sources:http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/rogers2.pdfhttp://shroud-enigma.com/challenge/jackson_paper/jackson-paper-on-image.html
... an "artistic fake/new duplication" attempt debunked:http://www.acheiropoietos.info/proceedings/HeimburgerWeb.pdf
People tend to substantiate or reject the Shroud from their own deeply-embedded anti-or-pro religious biases. However, the issue is purely scientific and historical.
"Supersitious worshipers' need to believe" is a factor that simply does not enter into scientific study of the Shroud. And for those who rightly
see the Shroud image as the corpse of the crucified Jesus, the cloth is not a "chain", but a sacrament, i.e., it functions as a lens that focuses the attention on Christ, and as a doorway into Christ mysticism. And I use the term rightly
deliberately, since the Shroud image - whether of the historical Jesus, a natural product, or an artistic creation - clearly shows a male who has suffered all the wounds reported of Jesus - particularly the side-wound and the crown of thorns. If the man is not Jesus; if the image is a natural product; if the Shroud is an artistic product does not matter in terms of devotion, since the image as it is
, is already a perfect facsimile of the Passion, regardless of the question of the circumstances of its creation.
It is important to recall that the claim, "the Shroud is a fake", is an incomplete sentence.
I.e., if the Shroud is a fake, one must state, and then prove, what kind
of fake it is, and this is what no Shroud critic has thus far been able to do. All claims of normal image production, as well as attempts at duplication, have failed utterly. The burden of proof also falls upon on those who insist on the Shroud's inauthenticity, and thus far none has been able to prove that the Shroud is inauthentic. And again, this is a scientific problem, not a matter of faith, belief, or superstition. As soon as next month, for example, the Shroud might be scientifically proven to be a relatively recent piece of art work. But until that time comes, "the jury is out" on Shroud authenticity, but with the constant proviso that, as the scientific situation currently stands, the Shroud's mystery is unassailed. The jury is still out, and those who deny this basic fact are clearly acting out of ignorance.