Malaria continues to ravage the developing world and remains one of the major world-health problems (World Health Organization). Rapid, low-cost, easy-to-use, and sensitive malaria-diagnostic technologies are considered to be the effective alternatives to fight the overuse of drugs. When malaria infection is clinically suspected, subsequent overuse leads to the increase of drug resistance of the parasite, which is currently observed in the malaria abatement.1 The precise identification of the malaria parasite, and its staging, will definitely facilitate its treatment with appropriate drugs. Many efforts have been made in the technological development for rapid and quantitative diagnosis of malaria.2–5 Several optical approaches have also been explored6–9 focusing on the detection of the malaria pigment hemozoin, which results from bio-crystallization of the toxic-free heme released by the parasite in its food vacuole, thus being a characteristic for a malaria infection. These techniques often require expensive equipment and well-equipped laboratories, which make them unrealistic on a large scale in malaria-endemic areas.10 Despite the increasing number of sophisticated technologies, Giemsa staining of thin and thick blood smears remains the gold standard for malaria diagnosis.11,12 Due to the transparency of the infected erythrocytes [red blood cells (RBCs)], under bright field microscopy, a dye agent is required to enhance the visual contrast of the parasite and its various shapes for accurate identification. Fluorescence staining techniques can, under optimum conditions, detect 20 to ,11 but is rather time-consuming and requires well-trained personnel; moreover, it requires manual examination using high-power microscopy of typically hundred fields of the slide for providing a confident decision. In order to get precise results, the dye needs to be replaced between two to three times, which is rarely fulfilled leading to inaccurate diagnosis and thereby to presumptive treatment.13 Due to the high dependence on the laboratory staff operator, it causes a number of false positive/negative smears. The disadvantage of fluorescence microscopy in malaria detection comes from the protocol of staining the blood smear and the manual examination of many fields to count, identify, and interpret the slides. The highest sensitivity of this method is only reached by well-trained microscopists. The current optical techniques also include wide-field confocal polarization microscopy,14 laser desorption mass spectroscopy (LDMS),15 third harmonic generation imaging,16 and magneto-optical testing.17 These techniques overcome some of the issues of specificity and sensitivity but are inappropriate for realistic employment in the developing parts of the world, since they likewise require expensive equipment and proper expertise. Another approach has been to develop antigen-based rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs), which can be self-administered outside the laboratory. There is contradicting information with regard to the sensitivity of antigen-based techniques11 versus microscopy,12 but the reports agree on the fact that the cumulative costs for administering the test on a wide scale poses a monetary problem, since the cost of a test ranges between $0.50 to $1.50. Since nearly 500 million cases of malaria are reported on a yearly basis, all the above-mentioned factors must be optimized in order to tackle the problem head on. An indirect problem caused by not being able to administer reliable tests is that common fever due to other infections is misinterpreted as symptoms of malaria infection. As an effect, antimalarial drugs are used in cases where they are not needed, creating a risk that the parasite develops a resistance to the drugs.11