Retreat Tourism: What the Evidence Supports

What a retreat is

Retreat tourism is travel built around a structured, purpose-led residential stay: a yoga or meditation intensive, a silent retreat, a digital detox, a burnout-recovery program, or a company off-site. It is best understood as a travel format that spans several categories. Wellness-focused retreats sit inside wellness tourism, meditation and pilgrimage retreats overlap with spiritual tourism, and corporate retreats belong to the business-travel market.

The academic literature offers several definitions, and they converge on a few ideas.

A purpose-built centre which accommodates its guests for the purpose of learning or improving a body-mind activity, and/or receiving complementary therapies while there.Naidoo, Schembri & Cohen, 2018, residential-retreat systematic review

Places for quiet reflection and rejuvenation, a chance to regain good health or a time for spiritual reassessment and renewal, alone or in a group.Kelly, cited in “Journeys of the Self”

A third definition, from the Journal of Research in Tourism Management and Development, describes a specially organized event in which a group moves away from its usual environment and devotes time to rest, study, development, or spiritual focus.

Kelly also draws a useful contrast. Water- and spa-based wellness leans toward curative body treatments. Retreat tourism leans toward preventive practices for mind and spirit, with self-development as a major focus.

One honest limitation: there is no single strict definition of “retreat.” Researchers usually define it operationally for a given study, for example a residential stay of one or more nights with a health-related outcome. That is the first reason to be careful when comparing numbers across sources.

How retreats differ from adjacent categories

A yoga retreat in Bali can be both wellness and spiritual tourism. The format is defined by the program, not by the label on the brochure.

Main forms

Market evidence

Market figures are in US dollars unless otherwise stated.

One example of how definitions shift the number: Mordor Intelligence values the combined wellness resort and retreat market at $121.32 billion in 2026, projected to reach $189.1 billion by 2031 (9.29% CAGR, 2026–2031). That definition explicitly bundles resorts, destination spas, and yoga and Ayurveda retreats into one category.

Wellness tourism: the better benchmark

The most defensible quantitative context comes from the Global Wellness Institute (GWI), the non-profit that publishes the sector’s benchmark data. According to its 2025 Global Wellness Economy Monitor:

• Wellness tourism generated $893.9 billion in 2024, up 13.8% from $785.6 billion in 2023.
• It grew at a 6.4% CAGR from 2019 to 2024, against 0.5% for all tourism.
• It is projected to reach $1,383.3 billion by 2029 at a 9.1% CAGR.
• It is the fourth-largest sector of the global wellness economy, at 13.2% of wellness spending.

This measures wellness tourism, not retreats. Its growth rate does not by itself establish that retreat travel is growing faster than tourism overall.

For Canadian context, GWI reports that Canada’s wellness economy reached $143.8 billion in 2023, the eighth largest globally, with wellness tourism then estimated at $13.3 billion (GWI’s 2024 Global Wellness Economy Monitor). The newer 2025 Monitor revises Canadian wellness tourism to US$13.9 billion for 2023 and reports US$16.6 billion for 2024; figures from different editions should not be combined to calculate growth. A fuller Canadian picture is in Retreat Tourism in Canada.

Reading the numbers

Three questions keep market and outcome figures honest. They apply to every statistic in this article and to any you meet elsewhere.

1. What is inside the category? The Mordor Intelligence figure of $121.32 billion bundles resorts, destination spas, and retreats. The GWI figure of $893.9 billion counts all trips with wellness spending, including a hotel spa used incidentally. Neither is a retreat count.
2. Who was measured? The 60% female, mean-age-58 profile describes one survey's respondents. The 8.3% adverse-event estimate describes meditation studies broadly. Neither describes every retreat guest.
3. Is the source measuring or reporting? GWI and the peer-reviewed studies measure. Condé Nast Traveller, Vogue, National Geographic, and The Times report on offerings and sentiment. Both are useful, but broader conclusions depend on each source’s sampling, methods, and scope.

Who goes, and why

The best-sourced demographic evidence is a peer-reviewed global survey by Naidoo, Schembri, and Cohen. It was anonymous, online, and run in nine languages among people who had attended at least one residential retreat in the previous 12 months. Of 3,708 who started, 2,661 were eligible. The abstract reports 60% female (1,299 respondents) and a mean age of 58 among 2,182 age responses.

The leading motivations in that survey were relaxation and holiday, improving general health and learning coping mechanisms, and reducing stress and improving mental health. These describe this survey’s respondents only. The authors note that longitudinal and randomized studies are needed before conclusions are drawn about the wider retreat-traveling population.

Documented motivations across the literature

• Stress reduction and burnout recovery, a leading stated motivation in the survey above.
• Self-development and spiritual renewal, central to the academic framing of retreat travel.
• Escape from digital saturation. A Bond University study identifies “being away” and disconnecting from technology as predictors of restorative outcomes.
• Community and connection. Trade coverage reports rising demand for shared rituals and communal spaces.
• Deepening practice beyond what is possible at home.

Reported trends, 2025–2026

The following come from editorial and trade coverage. They describe emerging offerings, not measured population-wide shifts, and should be read that way.

• Social and communal wellness. Condé Nast Traveller describes 2026 as a swing from the reclusive to the communal: group saunas, communal meals, group sound baths, and a “festivalization of wellness.”
• Emotional wellness programs. Vogue reports retreats dedicated to emotional regulation, grief, and burnout recovery as a growing focus.
• “Rage retreats.” National Geographic reports forest retreats where guests split logs with sledgehammers and outdoor “scream clubs,” framed as safe emotional release.
• Longevity and measurable outcomes. Vogue reports growing personalization through pre-arrival assessments and bespoke programming.
• Nature immersion. National Geographic characterizes 2026 as a return to the elements: glacier swims, geothermal pools, dark-sky stargazing, and woodland cabins with no Wi-Fi.
• Women’s health and family wellness. Condé Nast Traveller reports expanding programs for hormone health, menopause, prenatal and postpartum needs, and multi-generational families.
• Corporate retreats as strategic infrastructure. The Times reports that hybrid and remote work has made in-person offsites more valuable, with companies treating them as culture-building investments.
• Regional and “cocooning” wellness. Trade coverage cites rising interest in shorter, drivable retreats near home.

Illustrative examples

These contrast different segments. They are not a ranking.

The last row is instructive. The Retreat Costa Rica describes itself as a five-star, adults-only, full-service luxury wellness resort, not a scheduled retreat with mandatory programming. Guests choose how much wellness activity to take part in, and its “Retreat Experience” package includes three daily meals and access to optional yoga, sound healing, cooking classes, and workshops. By the definition above, that places it next to the retreat category rather than squarely inside it.

Research on outcomes

The 2018 systematic review

Naidoo, Schembri, and Cohen reviewed 23 studies published before February 2017 (8 randomized controlled trials, 6 non-randomized controlled trials, and 9 longitudinal cohort studies) involving 2,592 participants. It appeared in BMC Complementary and Alternative Medicine (vol. 18, art. 8).

• All 23 studies reported a statistically significant improvement in at least one outcome, measured from immediately after the retreat to five years later.
• Objective benefits included weight loss, reduced abdominal girth, lower blood pressure, and improved blood lipids.
• Subjective benefits included improved quality of life and psychological and spiritual well-being.
• Benefits extended to people with chronic conditions, including multiple sclerosis, cancers, HIV/AIDS, heart disease, and mental health issues.

The review’s own limitations are substantial. Most studies had small samples, poorly described methods, and little follow-up. None reported adverse effects or health-economic outcomes. The interventions were heterogeneous, so the findings do not automatically apply to today’s commercial retreat products.

The 2017 Queensland observational study

Cohen, Elliott, Oates, Schembri, and Mantri studied a one-week residential wellness retreat in Queensland, Australia. After one week (n = 37) they reported reductions in weight (−1.6 kg), abdominal girth (−2.7 cm), and blood pressure (−16.1/−9.3 mmHg systolic/diastolic), along with improvements in mood and stress measures. The study reports these were sustained at six weeks, but only 17 people completed that follow-up. That small sample limits confidence in the durability claim.

A 2026 mental-health-focused review

Burén and Bylow (Journal of Recovery in Mental Health, vol. 9, no. 2) examined 17 peer-reviewed studies published 2015–2025, covering approximately 6,501 participants, following PRISMA 2020 guidelines. Most studies reported improvements in mental health and subjective well-being. The authors identified five recurring potentially beneficial components:

1. Structured daily activities
2. Healthy diet
3. Social support
4. Self-regulation practices
5. The environment

Their conclusion is restrained: the evidence is heterogeneous, frequently limited by methodological weaknesses, and insufficient to support integration into clinical practice. The included interventions ranged from one day to about nine days, so the review is not exclusively about residential retreat travel.

Adverse effects: a real and documented concern

The 2018 retreat review found no reported adverse effects among its included studies. A separate body of research does document them for meditation practice broadly. It does not measure retreats specifically, and the distinction matters.

• Farias, Maraldi, Wallenkampf, and Lucchetti (2020), Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, vol. 142. Across 83 studies, the pooled adverse-event prevalence estimate was 8.3%, with anxiety, depression, and cognitive anomalies among the most commonly reported symptoms. The authors note such events are not uncommon and may occur in people with no prior mental-health history. This is an estimate for meditation broadly, not a retreat-specific rate.
• Pauly et al. (2022), BJPsych Open, vol. 8, issue 1. Among 1,370 regular meditators, 22% reported unpleasant meditation-related experiences and 13% reported adverse effects. Retreat attendees had higher odds of reporting unpleasant experiences (OR 1.89, 95% CI 1.43–2.48) than non-retreat meditators, but the study found no evidence of greater severity, and the authors state that definite conclusions about retreat effects could not be drawn.

Benefits and concerns

Documented benefits

• Short-term improvements in physical markers (weight, blood pressure, lipids) and psychological measures (mood, stress, quality of life) across the reviewed studies.
• Restorative outcomes tied to disconnection from technology and immersion in nature.
• Reported benefit for people managing chronic conditions, though the evidence is not strong enough to recommend retreats as a substitute for clinical care.

Risks and concerns

• Adverse effects in meditation practice, as above.
• Facilitator qualifications. Guests should check credentials, participant screening, emergency support, and whether participation in each activity is optional. The evidence reviewed does not establish a common credentialing standard across operators.
• Cultural sensitivity. Operators increasingly market “ancient healing practices,” such as Temazcal and indigenous ceremonies, which raises questions about commercialization of cultural traditions.
• Accessibility and cost. Total trip cost, remote venues, dietary accommodation, and support needs all matter. The evidence reviewed does not establish how accessible retreat travel is across income or ability levels.
• Unverified wellness claims. Emerging formats such as nutrigenomic retreats have limited rigorous evidence behind their specific claims.

The business side

Operating models vary: standalone retreat centers, resort-embedded wellness programs, and facilitator-organized retreats in which a teacher books a venue and sells packages. Revenue comes from per-person packages, add-ons such as private sessions and treatments, and corporate contracts. Operators commonly describe pricing as all-inclusive, covering accommodation, meals, and program activities. Precise profitability figures are not independently verifiable from public sources, so detailed economics fall outside this overview.

Implications for advisors

This section is editorial synthesis drawn from the evidence above, not a finding of any single study.

1. Define before you compare. When a market figure appears, ask what it includes. A “retreat market” number that bundles resorts and spas is not a retreat number.
2. Match the format to the person. A silent, ten-day program and an opt-in resort program are different products with different risk profiles. Pauly et al. found higher odds of unpleasant experiences among retreat attendees, which supports a more careful conversation about intensive formats.
3. Make screening part of the service. Ask operators how participants are screened, what emergency support exists, and whether any activity can be declined without penalty.
4. Keep claims proportionate. The research supports describing retreats as potentially beneficial for short-term mood, stress, and some physical measures. It does not support promising durable outcomes or positioning a retreat as a substitute for clinical care.
5. Treat cultural practices with care. Ask who leads ceremonial elements and under what authority.

A screening checklist for guests and advisors

Drawn from the concerns above. It is a set of questions to ask, not a safety standard, because the evidence reviewed does not establish a common credentialing or screening standard across operators.

Before booking

• Is this a scheduled program with structured practice, or a resort with optional activities? The risk profile differs.
• Who leads the practice, and what are their credentials?
• How are participants screened, and what happens if someone has a difficult experience mid-program?
• Can any activity be declined without penalty?
• Does the operator describe the evidence for its specific claims, or only the experience?

Fit and access

• What is the total trip cost, including travel to a remote venue and any add-on sessions?
• Can dietary and physical support needs be met?
• For ceremonial or traditional practices, who leads them and under what authority?

Expectations

• Is the stated benefit proportionate to the evidence: short-term mood, stress, and some physical measures?
• For anyone managing a chronic or mental health condition, has their own clinician been consulted? Retreats are not a substitute for clinical care.

Questions answered

Outlook

GWI projects wellness tourism, the category that contains wellness-focused retreats, to grow 9.1% annually from 2024 to 2029. Trade and editorial coverage points to burnout, loneliness, digital saturation, and hybrid-work culture as demand drivers, with offerings diversifying from silent meditation to corporate offsites. The open research questions are the durability of health benefits, adverse-event documentation, cultural and environmental sustainability, and equitable access.

Open questions

• How durable are the benefits beyond a few weeks, given the small follow-up samples?
• What is the true incidence of adverse events in retreats specifically, as opposed to meditation practice broadly?
• Which program components (structure, diet, social support, self-regulation, environment) carry the benefit?
• Who can access retreat travel, across income and ability?

Key sources

• GWI, Global Wellness Economy Monitor 2024 — Canadian wellness tourism, page 63; revised historical series
• GWI, Canada wellness economy update, March 26, 2025
• GWI, January 2026 country rankings announcement
• Global Wellness Institute, Global Wellness Economy Monitor 2025
• Naidoo, Schembri & Cohen, The health impact of residential retreats, BMC Complementary and Alternative Medicine, 2018
• Naidoo, Schembri & Cohen, Vacation or therapy?
• Kelly & Smith, Journeys of the Self: The Need to Retreat (2016)
• Cohen et al., Do Wellness Tourists Get Well?
• Burén & Bylow, Health retreats and mental health recovery, 2026
• Farias et al., Adverse events in meditation practices, Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 2020
• Pauly et al., Unpleasant meditation experiences, BJPsych Open, 2022
• Mordor Intelligence, Wellness Resort and Retreat Market
• Condé Nast Traveller, Wellness travel trends 2026
• National Geographic, Wellness travel trends 2026
• Vogue; The Times; Spa Business; Squadtrip; Bond University; PMC (nutrigenomic retreats)