Ayahuasca benefits: what research has and has not shown

THE SHORT VERSION · SWIPE

▶ Watch it as a 20-second video

‹›

“Ayahuasca benefits” is a common search, and the honest answer is narrower than most results suggest. Researchers have studied ayahuasca, an Amazonian brew that contains DMT, in people with depression, people with substance use problems, grieving adults, long-term church members and visitors to retreats. In some of these studies, people’s scores improved. Almost every study was small, short, uncontrolled or hard to blind.

This page is a map of that research, area by area, with each study’s design, size and limits. For what ayahuasca is, start with what is ayahuasca; for the name itself, see ayahuasca meaning and pronunciation.

What does “benefit” mean in ayahuasca research?

In a study, a “benefit” is a change in a measured score, such as a depression rating scale, compared with something. The strongest comparison is a placebo group: people who take an inactive drink without knowing which they got, in a randomized controlled trial (RCT). Weaker designs compare people with themselves before and after (open-label or observational studies), compare users with non-users who chose a different life, or ask volunteers to report their own experience in a survey.

Each step down that list makes it harder to tell what caused a change. Expectations, the group setting, the support around a session, and who chose to take part can all move scores. A 2026 systematic review of 18 prospective ayahuasca studies concluded that most were limited by small samples, unstandardized amounts, no control groups and non-randomized designs (Haupt et al., 2026). Evidence: established for the limits.

Ayahuasca benefits: what has research found, area by area?

Ayahuasca for depression: what did the trials find?

The best-known study is a 2019 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in Brazil of 29 people with treatment-resistant depression, meaning depression that had not improved with earlier treatments. Each received one session of ayahuasca or placebo. Clinician-rated depression scores were significantly lower with ayahuasca at days 1, 2 and 7. At day 7, 64% responded on ayahuasca against 27% on placebo; remission (36% against 7%) fell just short of statistical significance (Palhano-Fontes et al., 2019). Evidence: preliminary.

The trial has clear limits. It was small, and follow-up ended at one week, so it cannot say whether any change lasts. Vomiting occurred in 57% of the ayahuasca group and in none of the placebo group, which makes it likely that many people could tell which drink they had (Palhano-Fontes et al., 2019). The authors describe it as, to their knowledge, the first controlled trial of a psychedelic in treatment-resistant depression. Evidence: established for the design and limits.

Earlier work had no placebo group. The 2019 paper describes a prior open-label trial in which 17 patients with major depression attended one session, with lower depression scores for up to 21 days, and notes that such studies cannot control for the placebo effect (Palhano-Fontes et al., 2019). Evidence: preliminary.

Outside trials, a 2022 Dutch observational study followed 20 clinically depressed adults who attended a ceremony using an ayahuasca analogue, a preparation built to mimic the brew. Depression scores fell at one day, one month and one year, and 12 of the 17 people measured at one year were in remission. The authors note that other mental health treatments or other psychedelics during the year may have contributed (van Oorsouw et al., 2022). There was no control group. Evidence: preliminary.

A 2026 narrative review of psilocybin and ayahuasca in treatment-resistant depression found rapid symptom reductions for both, with psilocybin showing more robust evidence for lasting effects. It warns that trials systematically exclude people with other conditions, high suicide risk or several medications, so results reflect stable, selected patients rather than real-world ones (Civardi et al., 2026). For DMT itself, see DMT therapy research. Evidence: preliminary.

What about addiction and substance use?

A Canadian study is often cited. In 2013, researchers reported on 12 participants in a rural First Nations community in British Columbia. The program studied combined four days of group counselling with two ayahuasca sessions. At six months, scores for hopefulness, empowerment, mindfulness and parts of quality of life had improved significantly. Self-reported alcohol, tobacco and cocaine use declined, but only the drop in problematic cocaine use was statistically significant, and cannabis and opiate use did not decline (Thomas et al., 2013). There was no control group. Evidence: preliminary.

A follow-up paper interviewed 11 of the participants. All reported less substance use and fewer cravings, and they described a greater sense of connection with themselves, others and nature as central (Argento et al., 2019). These are qualitative reports from a small group, valuable for understanding experience but not a test of whether ayahuasca caused the change. Evidence: preliminary, and a report.

In Peru, a 2024 study followed 52 people through an accredited therapeutic community for addiction that combines ayahuasca with other therapies. At one year, alcohol and drug use severity, depression and anxiety had fallen, with wide individual variation; the authors stress the uncontrolled design (Rush et al., 2024). A 2025 review of psychedelics for alcohol use disorder found that observational studies “nearly uniformly” look promising, while trials against placebo or standard care have been more inconsistent (Miller et al., 2025). Evidence: preliminary.

What do studies of ayahuasca church members show?

Some of the longest-term data come from members of Brazilian churches that use ayahuasca as a sacrament, described in Santo Daime and the UDV. A 2012 study compared 127 regular ritual users with 115 people active in other religions, at baseline and one year later. Users scored lower on all psychopathology measures and showed no sign of mental health deterioration or cognitive impairment (Bouso et al., 2012). Evidence: preliminary.

A 2010 study using the Addiction Severity Index found that ritual users, in jungle and urban groups, scored lower than controls on alcohol use and psychiatric status (Fábregas et al., 2010). A 2016 study of 30 members of a US branch of the União do Vegetal and 27 matched churchgoers found lower depression and confusion scores and less recent alcohol use among members (Barbosa et al., 2016). Evidence: preliminary.

The common limit is self-selection. People chose these churches, and those who had a bad time may have left, so differences cannot be credited to the brew rather than to community, belief or who stays. These studies are best read as evidence that long-term ritual use was not linked to obvious harm in these groups, not as proof of a treatment effect. Evidence: preliminary.

What do observational studies and surveys report?

A 2026 study followed 66 adults attending neo-shamanic ceremonies for the first time, for 12 months. Depression, anxiety and stress scores were lower at every follow-up, most clearly in people with a diagnosed depressive or anxiety disorder; drops in alcohol and cannabis use were seen only at one month (Pagni et al., 2026). Volunteers chose to attend, and there was no control group. Evidence: preliminary.

The 2026 systematic review found similar group-level improvements across 18 prospective studies, mostly of retreat volunteers. It also found subsets of participants with persisting psychiatric complications linked to their use (Haupt et al., 2026). Group averages can hide people who got worse. Evidence: preliminary.

Has ayahuasca been studied for grief?

Yes, once in a controlled design. A 2025 study in Spain allocated 84 adults with severe grief, within a year of losing a close relative, in sequence (not at random) to ayahuasca with meaning-reconstruction therapy, the therapy alone, or no treatment, 28 per group. Grief fell in all three groups, and more with ayahuasca plus therapy than in either other group. No serious adverse events were reported. The authors call it preliminary and say larger randomized trials are needed (Soto-Angona et al., 2025). Evidence: preliminary.

What does ayahuasca do in the body? Effects studies report

The 2019 trial paper summarises ayahuasca’s acute psychological effects as intense changes in perception, thinking and emotion lasting around four hours. Physical effects are hard to miss: in that depression trial, nausea was reported by 71% on ayahuasca and 26% on placebo, and vomiting by 57% against none (Palhano-Fontes et al., 2019). In a global online survey of 10,836 people, 69.9% reported acute physical adverse effects, mainly vomiting, and 2.3% needed medical attention afterwards (Bouso et al., 2022). Evidence: established that vomiting is common.

The same survey found that 55.9% reported adverse mental health effects in the following weeks or months. About 88% of those saw them as part of a positive process, and about 12% sought professional support (Bouso et al., 2022). Respondents chose to take part, so the numbers describe that group, not all users. Timing and body effects compared with DMT alone are in ayahuasca vs DMT. Evidence: preliminary.

Who has been excluded from ayahuasca trials?

Trial results only describe the kind of people who were allowed in. The 2019 depression trial excluded people with previous ayahuasca experience, current medical illness, pregnancy, neurological disorders, a personal or family history of schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, mania or hypomania, use of substances of abuse, and suicide risk (Palhano-Fontes et al., 2019). Evidence: established.

This pattern is the norm. A 2026 scoping review of 26 registered DMT and ayahuasca trials found conservative eligibility rules, favouring medically and psychiatrically healthy adults with extensive heart and psychiatric exclusions; most trials were phase I and focused on acute safety (Stojanović et al., 2026). The depression review makes the same point about suicide risk, other illnesses and multiple medications (Civardi et al., 2026). None of this is advice about who should or should not take anything. Evidence: established.

What risks and interactions have researchers described?

A 2024 review of 78 articles concluded that serious adverse effects are rarely reported in healthy people in controlled settings, but noted harm to pregnancy in animal studies at high amounts and potential toxicity of isolated alkaloids, which may increase with some medications (White et al., 2024). A 2013 review of reported life-threatening cases found that many lacked toxicology data, yet suggested heart disease, liver disease and current serotonergic medication as contraindications (dos Santos, 2013). Evidence: established for the mechanism; preliminary for how often harm occurs.

Why is ayahuasca research still described as early?

• Only one placebo-controlled depression trial, with 29 people and one week of follow-up (preliminary).
• Most other studies have no control group, so improvement cannot be separated from expectation, setting or time (preliminary).
• Church and retreat studies involve people who chose to take part, and surveys rely on self-report (preliminary).
• Brews vary, so studies may not be testing the same thing (unresolved).
• Trials exclude many people with other illnesses or medications, so results may not apply to them (established).
• Research findings do not change the law: DMT is a controlled substance in Canada; see is DMT legal in Canada.

What is still unknown?

Whether any change in depression lasts beyond a week in a controlled trial. Whether the improvements seen in addiction and retreat studies would survive a placebo comparison. Who is at risk of lasting psychological harm, and how often serious drug interactions happen in practice. Evidence: unresolved. The fair summary is that small studies have produced early signals, alongside real risks, and that the research needed to call anything a treatment has not yet been done.

Shroomverse sells mushroom products. This article is general information about ayahuasca research. It is not medical, legal or purchasing advice, and it does not recommend any product.