That claim is not true. One of many of the claims in this article that is simply not true... including the one that remnants of shrouds have not been found in burials inside Jerusalem. In fact, the weaving of the Shroud, done on a wall loom, with the hand spinning, the soapwort fullering, and hank bleaching technique, when used in combination... something that would not have been likely done deliberately... are all, according to numerous textile experts, uniquely first Century. The thee over one twill in Linen would have been a very expensive cloth that would have represented weeks of work of a skilled weaver. It would have been reserved for avery wealthy buyer, a person such as Joseph of Arimathea was described as having been.
A leper, with two communicable diseases, such as the body covered by this shroud, is probably not a candidate for purchasing a "fine Linen cloth" and his relative used what they could afford. In fact, as you know, as a weaver, the larger the cloth, the more expensive it will be.
What this burial DOES prove, however, is that they DID use a large sheet... and bound his wrists, his jaw, and his ankles, as is reported in Jewish custom and was postulated as the "bindings" or mistranslated "wrappings" in Jesus' burial.
The weaving argument didn’t make much sense. Now if the Shroud were polyester or had a Gucci logo on it...
Thanks for the excellent fact-based commentary. It’s striking to see how superior your understanding of this topic is to that of the “professional journalist” who cobbled together this article.