yeah, I'm confused what belief is held such that you can't be fingerprinted. My initial searching for what that might be is mostly "Mark of the Beast". Which seems odd.
For starters you don't (do you?) speak the original language, so you're at the mercy of the translator for the term "mark"
But, going more meta, most religious traditions don't have a strict textual interpretation of their texts. Certainly the author could not have known fingerprinting techniques 2000 years ago. It is not unreasonable to interpret "mark" to be an identifier.
Of course then the "fingerprint" mark would have to be compatible with the rest of Revelations.
Citation needed.
> It is not unreasonable to interpret "mark" to be an identifier.
Adding an identifier, perhaps. But to interpret that passage to refer to taking pictures or imprints? That is unreasonable.