Monotropa uniflora — Ghost Pipe

When the police told me that my brother had died, Monotropa was the first plant that came to mind.

Honestly, I didn't take the time to dilute it in water or count the drops. I put a dropperful directly on my tongue.

A few moments later, my grief hadn't diminished. It was still there—enormous, impossible to get around.

But something had changed.

My thoughts were clearer. I felt more grounded. I could breathe. I could remain present with what was happening instead of being completely overwhelmed by it. Monotropa didn't take my grief away. It allowed me to remain present through it.

A Very Unusual Plant

Monotropa uniflora, also known as Ghost Pipe or Ghost Plant, is a rather strange plant.

White, almost translucent, it contains no chlorophyll. It therefore doesn't produce energy in the same way as the green plants we know. Instead, it has a fascinating relationship with fungi in the soil and with forest trees, particularly conifers.

And then there is its tincture.

It can develop blue, mauve, or violet hues—a transformation that seems perfectly suited to the strange nature of this plant. But behind this almost supernatural appearance lies a medicinal history much older than one might expect.

And this is where things get interesting.

Today, Monotropa is often presented as a controversial, even dangerous plant. We hear about toxicity, grayanotoxins, risks to the liver... But when we go back to the original sources, the story becomes much less straightforward.

An Old Medicinal History

Monotropa did not suddenly appear in contemporary herbalism through social media.

In 1935, Brother Marie-Victorin published his monumental Flore laurentienne. In his description of Monotropa uniflora, he reported its use for nervous disorders. This reference also appears in a university thesis examining the evolution of knowledge surrounding medicinal plants in Quebec.

This obviously does not mean that Marie-Victorin had demonstrated the effectiveness of Monotropa according to modern research standards. Rather, he was documenting a medicinal use known in his time.

Alongside this medicinal history, however, another reputation developed: that of a potentially toxic plant.

To understand where that reputation came from, we have to go much further back.

To 1889.

1889: A Claim That Endured Through Time

In 1889, a publication by A. J. M. Lasché reported the presence of a substance then called andromedotoxin in Monotropa. This substance is now known as grayanotoxin I.

Grayanotoxins are indeed real toxic compounds, known particularly from certain Rhododendron and Kalmia species. At toxic doses, they can act on sodium channels and cause significant cardiovascular and neurological effects.

But… does Monotropa actually contain them?

For a very long time, this claim rested essentially on that 1889 report.

And here, an important distinction needs to be made:

“An old study reported the presence of a substance” is not quite the same thing as “this plant contains that substance.”

To turn an observation into solid scientific knowledge, it needs to be verified and, ideally, reproduced.

And this question remained practically unanswered for more than a century…

2025: Going Back to Check

In 2025, a team of researchers at Penn State decided to revisit this very question. They analyzed 50 samples of Monotropa uniflora using modern mass spectrometry techniques as well as molecular networking.

The result is particularly interesting: no grayanotoxins or structural analogues were detected in any of the 50 samples analyzed. The researchers concluded that their findings contradict the analysis reported in 1889.

But careful!

This study does not mean that Monotropa has now been proven completely safe.

And this is a nuance I absolutely want to preserve.

Research on this plant remains limited. We still have much to learn about its chemical composition, pharmacology, toxicology, and effects in humans.

The absence of grayanotoxins is not a general certificate of safety. But it does allow us to stop presenting as established fact a claim that was based on an observation more than a century old and was not confirmed by this new analysis.

And personally, I find that fascinating.

So, What Do We Actually Know?

That's probably the most interesting question.

Monotropa has a medicinal history. We have traditional observations. We have botanical and chemical data. We now have new research.

But we don't have all the answers yet—and that's perfectly okay.

Asking the Right Questions Before Making Big Claims

This is ultimately what Monotropa has taught me through this research.

Just because someone is popular on social media doesn't make them a scientist.

And just because information comes from a scientist doesn't automatically make it true.

Nor does the fact that something has been passed down from mother to daughter necessarily make it false… or necessarily true.

The story isn't over… but at least, now, we're looking again.

References

1. Anez, S. G., Flail, D. B., Burkhart, E. P. & Kellogg, J. J. (2025). Targeted and Untargeted Mass Spectrometry Do Not Detect Grayanane-Type Toxins in Monotropa uniflora L. Journal of Natural Products, 88(10), 2540–2545. DOI: 10.1021/acs.jnatprod.5c00805.
2. Anez, S. G., Burkhart, E. P. & Kellogg, J. J. (2025). Ghost Pipe Then and Now: The Influence of Digital Media on the Medicinal Use of Monotropa uniflora in the United States. Economic Botany, 79(4), 460–477. DOI: 10.1007/s12231-025-09637-1.
3. Frère Marie-Victorin. (1935). Flore laurentienne. Montréal: Frères des Écoles chrétiennes.
4. Stanley, J. L. & Patterson, G. W. (1977). Sterols and fatty acids of some non-photosynthetic angiosperms. Phytochemistry, 16(10), 1611–1612. DOI: 10.1016/0031-9422(77)84040-5.
5. Hazinia et al. (2026). Integrated Metabolomics, Transcriptomics, and Ultrastructural Assessment of the Myco-Heterotrophic Plant, Monotropa uniflora. Plant Direct.

© 2026 Mélanie Lavoie — La Prêle du Temps. Any reproduction must credit the source and obtain permission from the author.