Lithotherapy and science

Chemical composition, crystal structure, hardness, cleavage, density and optical properties are measurable features well described in the mineralogical literature — the cards’ “Mineralogy” and “How to identify” sections rest on them. The mere existence of measurable crystal properties, however, says nothing about effects on health or wellbeing: such a claim has to be tested separately, in a study with a suitable comparison group. [1]

The largest study we found was published in 2025 by Escolà-Gascón and colleagues. 138 adults were classified as believers or non-believers in crystals and randomly assigned to rose quartz or a visually similar placebo object for 14 days. Anxiety fell only among believers — whether or not they had real quartz — and no difference between the groups was shown. The authors attribute the change to expectation and conditioning. Participants did not have diagnosed anxiety disorders. [36]

The second study concerned amethyst: in a Danish double-blind study from 2025, 38 healthcare workers carried an amethyst or a similar stone for four weeks; neither group changed its lifestyle or self-rated health. It was a small study of healthy people, published in a light-hearted Christmas issue of a medical journal, with 18% drop-out. Both studies concern their own stones, duration and protocol. [126]

On 4 October 2026 we searched PubMed for each of the 20 materials, combining the stone’s name with terms such as “crystal healing”, “lithotherapy”, “placebo”, “anxiety”, “meditation” or “wellbeing”. For 18 materials we found no studies of lithotherapy; most hits were chance name matches — drug trials with such acronyms, selenium chemistry, the dye malachite green, technical uses of tourmaline. We record the queries in our editorial documentation. No hits is the result of our search, not proof that no study exists. [129]

Two results needed separate explanation. A 2023 review concerned Chinese compound medicines containing pyrite used for fractures — an entirely different practice from lithotherapy and no reason to take pyrite oneself. Studies of facial rollers and gua sha massage compare massage techniques, not materials, so they say nothing about jadeite. [127] [128]

The rose-quartz study is not a test of sodalite or hematite, and the amethyst result says nothing about labradorite. That is why the cards do not transfer results from one stone to another: for stones nobody has studied we state plainly that we found no studies. Conversely, the absence of studies does not confirm the beliefs — it only means the question has not been tested. [36] [126] [129]

The 2025 study shows something important for practice: the improvement people felt was linked to their expectations, not to the kind of object in their hand. The authors note that context, attention and the therapeutic relationship can amplify such responses. This does not, however, justify attributing healing effects to stones or replacing treatment with them. [36]

Each note is one short paragraph and concerns only the material in question: if there is a study of that stone, we describe it; if not, we say what the results found were about. We do not repeat long disclaimers in every paragraph of the tradition description; this page is the place for the wider context. Real physical hazards — dust, composition, fire, swallowing — are described separately, in the safety section and in the mineral safety guide.

Many people value working with stones as a ritual, a moment of focus, a connection with nature or the beauty of a collection — and that is a value independent of clinical trial results. For health problems, stones may accompany a practice, but they do not replace a doctor’s advice or treatment. This separation lets us write about lithotherapy respectfully and honestly at the same time.