I'm not suggesting for a moment that your faith rests on the authenticity of the Tuirin shroud, but I don't understand why you would throw out all the evidence against it being authentic. Most of the arguments against the radiocarbon dating that I've seen so far show a distinct lack of understanding when it comes to radiocarbon dating and science in general, even failure of logical thinking.
You have said, however, that if Scott's faith doesn't rest on it then neither does yours. What if he changes his mind and declares that his faith does rest on it - are you going to change yours? I don't think you will. From what I've seen, your faith certainly doesn't rest solely on other people's opinions, it's a strong, heartfelt belief. However, in trying to rationalise this belief, you've been quoting pseudoscience which weakens your arguments. You will NEVER be able to prove the existence of God or the reality of the ressurection because both need faith, according to Jesus. You don't need faith if you have proof. For example, I don't have faith in my cooker cooking my dinner because I know for a fact that it will, barring powercuts. Faith is all about sticking to a belief without there being any proof. I'm not talking about blind faith here.
There are certain bits and pieces of the Bible which the vast majority of Christians and Christian churches accept as being unlikely or erroneous, based on the fact that they were written by ordinary people like you and me who make mistakes all the time. I wonder if its time to stop trying to prove the validity of some of these dodgy bits and concentrate on the central nugget of the Bible - Jesus died for us so that we can be forgiven for our sins.
The theory about the scorching of the shroud by a mysterious holy light falls at the very first hurdle. OK, so some passages talk about a brilliant light when God appears, but others don't - how about the burning bush? How about the baptism of Jesus when the main effect seemed to be a dove descending? Even if there was a brilliant light, you can't say that that's what "scorched" the shroud. How often have you seen brilliant light scorch something? You would have to invoke a special type of brilliant light. So many steps in the theory depend on conclusions thought up only to bolster the argument ie sloppy thinking.
I think I might be tempted to sell my PhD thesis too if you can get that amount of cash for it. Sadly, very few people would be interested in it and, to be honest when I look back I can see so many "holes" in it that I think I should keep it under wraps!