Mantle‐derived volatile degassing lacks quantitative evaluation in continental regions without active magmatism, such as the Tibetan Plateau. Ten new gas abundance and helium isotope data points combined with 286 hydrothermal volatile literature data points in India–Asia continental collision settings demonstrate widespread mantle‐derived volatiles across the thick (∼70 km) crust. The mantle‐derived ³He is best explained by direct mantle volatile input from subcontinental lithospheric mantle (1%–36.5%) or the asthenospheric wedge (1%–27.8%) instead of fossil residual magmatic fluids or Quaternary mantle‐derived melt intrusion into crustal depth. Mantle‐derived ³He is transported from the deep mantle to the surface at an upflow rate of 30–11,700 mm/year based on a newly developed steady‐state one‐dimensional flow model, corresponding to a mantle‐derived ³He flux of 17 to 1.5 × 10⁷ atoms m⁻² s⁻¹ (81.7%–99.4% of the total ³He flux) and a mantle‐derived ⁴He flux from 2.0 × 10⁶ to 1.8 × 10¹² atoms m⁻² s⁻¹ (1.4%–36.5% of the total ⁴He flux). The mantle‐derived helium fluxes in the study area are comparable to those of other nonvolcanic hydrothermal systems in the tectonically active regions but lower than those of volcanic fields. The helium transit time ranges from 5.3 ka to 2.3 Ma, indicating that the spatial pattern of ³He/⁴He ratios in the India‐Asia continental collision settings can provide a snapshot of the state of the Indian mantle lithosphere between those revealed by potassic‐rich mafic rocks (25–8 Ma) and seismic methods (present).

Dual isotopes of sulfate (δ³⁴SSO₄ and δ¹⁸OSO₄), along with isotopes in water and trace elements of geothermal waters, are systematically investigated to quantitatively elucidate sulfate sources and oxygen and sulfur isotopic behaviors during deep groundwater circulation and to constrain reservoir temperatures in the Jimo nonvolcanic geothermal system on the eastern coast of China. The results show that δ³⁴SSO₄ and δ¹⁸OSO₄ values in geothermal waters ranged from −21.0 to 5.7‰ and from 1.1 to 8.8‰, respectively. An increase in SO₄ concentrations (140–796 mg/L) with a systematic decrease in δ³⁴SSO₄ and δ¹⁸OSO₄ values was observed along the flow path from the central to eastern and western parts. The sulfate in the Middle Group was predominantly from atmospheric deposition, with sulfide oxidation contributions of <27%. In contrast, 80–85% of SO₄ in the Eastern Group is derived from pyrite oxidation. In the Western Group, the oxidation of multiple metal sulfides contributed 43–66% of SO₄. Sulfate oxidation and mixing of shallow groundwater caused reservoir temperatures to be underestimated by 9 ± 6–14 ± 16% using silica and K-Mg geothermometers but overestimated by up to 52–62% using sulfate–water oxygen isotope geothermometers. The estimated average target reservoir temperature was 144 ± 8 °C, with geothermal waters circulating to depths of 3.6–4.6 km. This study offers new insights into the significant impact of sulfate-related processes on geothermometric estimates, a factor often overlooked when using aqueous geothermometers. It also provides valuable guidance for accurately estimating target geothermal reservoir temperatures and advancing exploration in nonvolcanic geothermal systems.