The term ‘biographical material’ occupies a contested site in the depth-psychology corpus, pulled between at least three distinct uses: the clinical, the hermeneutic, and the ontological. In Grof’s cartography of the unconscious, biographical material denotes the stratum of personal history—traumas, conflicts, relationships—that LSD sessions initially activate before deeper perinatal and transpersonal strata become available; it functions as a threshold, not a foundation. For Rank, biographical material about an artist stands in minimal psychological connexion to the work; Shakespeare’s scanty life-record no more explains the plays than Homer’s blindness explains the epics, because the creative type exceeds its contingent carrier. Hillman, writing from an acorn-theory perspective, intensifies this suspicion: biographical material is structurally duplicitous, shielding or even falsifying the daimonic image that actually drives a life. The famous parade of disguises—Castro’s forged report cards, Stokowski’s invented accent, Duncan’s mislaid passports—illustrates Hillman’s conviction that biographical fact, taken as transparent truth, misreads the soul’s own self-protective legend-making. Freud introduces the ‘biographical dream’ as a distinct category, gesturing toward the unconscious’s capacity to render a life-narrative symbolically. Kerenyi’s mythological riposte insists that mythology is always less than biography in temporal coverage but more than any biography in its comprehension of life-stages as timeless realities. Across these positions, biographical material is never simply archival evidence; it is a psychologically charged medium that both conceals and reveals.