Alchemical Recovery occupies a distinctive position within the depth-psychology corpus, functioning simultaneously as a clinical metaphor, a philosophical framework, and a transformational process. The term does not name a single doctrine; rather, it designates the broad analogical field in which alchemical operations — dissolution, putrefaction, calcination, coagulation — are mapped onto psychological renewal and the restoration of wholeness. Jung’s foundational equation of the opus alchymicum with individuation remains the gravitational centre: the nigredo of defeat and decomposition precedes the albedo of clarification, and the full cycle constitutes what the tradition calls recovery of the self. Edinger and von Franz extend this framework into clinical psychotherapy, showing how specific operations — solutio, calcinatio, putrefactio — correspond to datable psychic events in a patient’s work. Moore complicates the picture by insisting that alchemical recovery is less a goal than a continuous dialectic of solve et coagula, a perpetual oscillating movement that resists any triumphalist terminus. Romanyshyn introduces a methodological register, reconceiving scholarly research itself as alchemical hermeneutics in which loss, mourning, and symbolic reconciliation constitute the researcher’s recovery of meaning. Tensions persist between models that locate recovery in the individual ego’s transmutation and those that situate it in impersonal archetypal processes. The addiction-recovery literature (White, Laudet, McCabe) supplies an empirical counterpoint, grounding alchemical metaphor in longitudinal outcome data while preserving its spiritual dimension.