Every reading on this site is a summary of classical palmistry literature — not "AI intuition", not invented. The wording is our own; the ideas belong to the tradition. All four traditions below are public domain.
The most systematic English text on palmistry: ~635 pages, ~800 illustrations drawn from life. Benham catalogued how line length, depth, curvature, breaks, branches and terminations had traditionally been read. Public domain (published 1900). Our per-feature grammar — what "long", "deep", "broken", "forked" traditionally suggest — follows Benham's framework, in our own words.
The famous early-20th-century palmist whose books carried Indian palmistry to the West. His line-by-line readings and mount interpretations are among the most widely referenced in the English tradition. Public domain. Cited where our summaries draw on his line readings.
The classical Sanskrit science of body-feature reading, of which palmistry (hasta rekha shastra) is a part — ancient, authorless, and outside copyright entirely. It contributes the mounts' planetary associations, the dominant/non-dominant hand distinction, and much of the Hindi terminology used across this site. Where modern commentaries exist, we write our own summaries rather than copying them.
China's hand-reading tradition, with roots over two thousand years old, reads the same four major lines with its own emphases — the heart line's curvature, the head line's slope, and the life line's arc around the thumb. Classical Chinese texts are long out of copyright; where our readings triangulate with this tradition's interpretations, we cite it alongside the others and flag where they disagree.
Each section of your reading ends with a small source note, e.g. "per Benham (1900)". That means: this interpretation summarizes what that text traditionally teaches about the feature measured — not that the text "proves" anything, and not that we copied its words.
Palmistry is a traditional art of self-reflection. These sources are authorities of the tradition — they are not scientific evidence, and we never present them as such.