GOLD, FRANKINCENSE, AND MYRRH: What Can Actually Be Said About the Brain

The three gifts in the Gospel of Matthew are not explained.
No rationale is given. No commentary follows. The text simply records them:

Gold.
Frankincense.
Myrrh.

For centuries, their meaning has been read symbolically—kingship, divinity, mortality. That interpretive tradition is well established.

But modern readers often ask a different question:

Do these substances have measurable effects on the human body—particularly the brain?

The answer is not uniform. Each gift must be considered on its own terms, with careful attention to what current evidence actually supports.

GOLD: MATERIAL PROPERTIES AND MODERN MEDICINE

Gold is widely known for two properties:

High electrical conductivity.
Resistance to corrosion and oxidation.

These characteristics make it valuable in electronics, where stable, long-term conductivity is essential.

In biomedical research, gold has taken on a different role. Engineered gold nanoparticles—particles reduced to the nanoscale—are being studied for their ability to cross the Blood-brain barrier under controlled conditions. In experimental settings, they can be used to deliver drugs to specific regions of the brain.

That finding is real—but its scope is limited.

It applies to:

Laboratory-engineered particles.
Precisely controlled delivery systems.

It does not imply that metallic gold, as an element or object, naturally interacts with the brain in this way under ordinary conditions.

So while gold participates in cutting-edge neurological research, there is no evidence that it was historically understood or used as a substance affecting brain function.

FRANKINCENSE: A CASE OF MEASURABLE NEUROBIOLOGICAL ACTIVITY

Of the three gifts, Frankincense has the strongest connection to modern neurobiological research.

A 2008 study published in the FASEB Journal, conducted by researchers at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and Johns Hopkins University, examined a compound found in frankincense known as incensole acetate.

The study found that:

Incensole acetate activates TRPV3 ion channels.
In animal models (mice), this activation produced anti-anxiety and antidepressant-like effects.
When TRPV3 receptors were genetically removed, these effects disappeared.

This indicates a receptor-specific mechanism, not a general sedative effect.

Additional measurements in these studies detected the compound in brain tissue at very low concentrations, suggesting it can reach the central nervous system under experimental conditions.

However, precision matters:

These findings are based primarily on animal studies
TRPV3 receptors are not limited to the brain; they are also present in peripheral tissues.
The extent to which these effects translate to humans remains under investigation.

What can be said, carefully, is that frankincense contains compounds capable of interacting with biological systems in ways that influence mood and perception, at least in controlled experimental contexts.

HISTORICAL USE: A TRADITIONAL RECOGNITION OF EFFECT

Long before modern pharmacology, ancient sources appear to recognize that frankincense could alter subjective experience.

The Talmud (Sanhedrin 43a) records that a mixture including frankincense was given to condemned individuals to dull awareness before execution.

This is not biochemical evidence. It does not identify receptors or mechanisms.

But it does indicate that the substance was historically associated with sensory or psychological modulation.

That observation, while limited, aligns with modern findings in a general way.

MYRRH: MEDICINAL, BUT NOT NEUROLOGICALLY ESTABLISHED

Myrrh has a long history of medicinal use.

Modern research supports several properties:

Antimicrobial.
Anti-inflammatory.
Analgesic (pain-modulating).

However, compared to frankincense, there is less evidence linking myrrh directly to central nervous system activity or specific brain mechanisms.

Its primary effects appear to operate through peripheral physiological pathways, rather than targeted neurological action.

WHAT DOES NOT FOLLOW

Taken together, these findings are suggestive—but they do not justify stronger claims.

There is currently no scientific evidence that:

The three gifts form a coordinated system acting on the brain,
They correspond to specific brain structures,
They were selected with knowledge of neurological effects, or
That the narrative encodes biological information in a hidden form.

Those conclusions go beyond what the data supports.

WHAT CAN BE SAID—WITHOUT OVERREACH

A more defensible reading is this:

At least one of the substances (frankincense) contains compounds with measurable neurobiological effects in experimental settings.

Another (myrrh) has established medicinal properties, though not clearly central to brain function.

The third (gold) plays a role in modern biomedical research under highly specific conditions, but not in its ordinary form.

These are independent observations, not a unified system.

THE ENDURING STRUCTURE

The text gives you three gifts.

History gives you layers of meaning.
Science gives you fragments of function.

What connects them is not proof of hidden design—but a pattern that invites interpretation.

And interpretation, when it stays anchored to evidence, does not weaken the mystery.

It clarifies where the boundary is:

Between what can be demonstrated,
what can be reasonably inferred, and
what remains—powerfully, persistently—symbolic.