Postscript (correction: ‘prescript‘) added July 2019:
You have arrived at a 2014 posting. That was the year in which this investigator finally abandoned the notion of the body image being made by direct scorch off a heated metal template (despite many attractions, like negative image, 3D response etc. But hear later: orchestral DA DA! Yup, still there with the revised technology! DA DA! ).
In its place came two stage image production.
.
Stage 1: sprinkle white wheaten flour or suchlike vertically onto human subject from head to foot, front and rear (ideally with initial smear of oil to act as weak adhesive). Shake off excess flour, then cover the lightly coated subject with wet linen. Press down VERTICALLY and firmly (thus avoiding sides of subject). Then (and here’s the key step):
Stage 2: suspend the linen horizontally over glowing charcoal embers and roast gently until the desired degree of coloration, thus ‘developing’ the flour imprint, so as to simulate a sweat-generated body image that has become yellowed with centuries of ageing.
.
The novel two-stage “flour-imprinting’ technology was unveiled initially on my generalist “sciencebuzz” site. (Warning: one has to search assiduously to find it, and it still uses a metal template, albeit unheated, as distinct from human anatomy):
So it’s still thermal development of sorts, but with a key difference. One can take imprints off human anatomy (dead or alive!).
A final wash of the roasted flour imprint with soap and water yields a straw-coloured nebulous image, i.e. with fuzzy, poorly defined edges. It’s still a negative (tone-reversed) image that responds to 3D-rendering software, notably the splendid freely-downloadable ImageJ. (Ring any bells? Better still, orchestral accompaniment – see , correction HEAR earlier – DA DA!))
.
This 2014 “prescript” replaces the one used for my earlier 2012/2013 postings, deploying abandoned ‘direct scorch’ technology.
Thank you for your patience and forbearance. Here’s where the original posting started:
Original posting starts here:
There’s been some misunderstanding about what I have been proposing these last 2 years, in the course of some 200 postings. That’s partly my fault – the underlying ideas have developed organically, with few summaries en route. End of self-flagellation: here’s a flow chart, hurriedly constructed in MS Paint, that I hope will allow folk to see that I am not proposing that a Templar was removed at half-time from the stake while still medium rare, and pressed into linen, to be later returned for complete combustion.
Colin Berry, Feb 10, 2014 (Click on diagram to ENLARGE)
No, the TS was produced as tribute, memento, relic, call it what you wish in what an imaginative person considered the most appropriate art form – pyrography – scorching a heated Christ-like (commandeered bronze crucifix?) template of one of the victims (Jacques de Molay? Geoffroi de Charney?) into linen to produce a negative (light/dark reversed) image.
Who commissioned it? Maybe Geoffroi de Charny, Lord of Lirey, instigator of the hugely neglected Lirey Pilgrim’s badge, it bearing his and his wife’s coat-of-arms, and considered by genealogist Noel Currer-Briggs to have been the older De Charney’s nephew.
Shroud of Turin, left (positive) versus modern artist’s impression of the burning at stake of Knight Templar Grand Master, Jacques de Molay, Paris, 1314
Should there be interest in this posting I may try adding some more words at a later date. But you know what they say about a picture (“worth a thousand words”). Let’s hope the same applies to flow charts.
Postscript: here is just one of the many curious features of the Lirey Pilgrim’s badge, on the “uninteresting” reverse side – a series of trellis patterns, interrupted by pattern-free strips:
Click on images to ENLARGE
See Mario Latenedresse’s explanation above image on left, i.e. that it is an attempt to show the herringbone weave of the Shroud. But the pattern shown is a trellis, and the front side of the badge DOES show the distinctive herringbone weave. So might the trellis pattern indicate something else, something quite different?
See my recent post ( not forgetting a much earlier one from 2013) for an entirely different explanation. The trellis is a plan view of the grid/grill used for mass execution of Templars, Paris, 1314, by slow-roasting. Nothing ventured, nothing gained.
My answer to the steeped-in-mystique Turin Shroud - evolving gradually from some 10 years of science-based experimental modelling. 
same hypothesis was proposed in new thriller, “The Linen God”. Great read.
Sorry, haven’t read the book, and am not a great fan of novels, certainly not of the Dan Brown genre (which I found tedious and all too often predictable with those little puzzles imposed on the grand-daughter).
I’ve looked at the reviews of Jim O’Shea’s “The Linen God” but they don’t give much away re storyline, so it’s difficult to know what to read into your “same hypothesis”.
If it’s a Templar connection, then I’m aware that others got there before me, notably Knight and Lomas with their “Second Messiah”. But I did not see the image as Jacques de Molay, at least initially, but as Geoffroi de Charney, who occupies one of the boxes in my flow chart. That was through learning of the Lirey badge and its history (which can be written on the back of a postage stamp) and following the De Charny lineage back from nephew to almost-identically named uncle, assisted by the late genealogist Noel Currer-Briggs. Only then did I learn that de Charney and de Molay had been burned at the stake on the very same day in 1314. When it transpired that both had in fact been sadistically slow-roasted, bells started to ring, given the scorch-like nature of the TS image (see previous posting for the way in which numerous lines of evidence seemed to converge and reinforce each other).