The term ‘Body Gods’ emerges in the depth-psychology corpus at the intersection of somatic theology, archetypal imagination, and the phenomenology of embodiment. The corpus does not employ the phrase as a fixed technical term but rather as a horizon of meaning generated wherever authors locate divine or numinous agency within, or as, the body itself. Clarissa Pinkola Estés provides the most explicit formulation, arguing that the body may function as ‘a God in its own right, a teacher, a mentor, a certified guide’ — a move that inverts the classical Platonic subordination of flesh to spirit and instead discovers the sacred in somatic intelligence. Thomas Moore approaches the same territory through a Ficinian lens, urging an ‘imaginal body’ whose soul-dimension exceeds its mechanical reduction. Marion Woodman grounds the concept in clinical experience, insisting that body and soul are ontologically indissociable and that the body’s patient, loyal endurance is itself a form of grace. James Hillman complicates the picture: he warns against literalizing the body as earth, arguing that the body gods are poetic realities afflicted by elemental reveries rather than anatomical facts. Plato’s Timaeus supplies the cosmological backstory: the Demiurge assigns ‘younger gods’ to fashion and rule mortal bodies. Together, these voices delineate a persistent tension between body-as-vessel and body-as-divinity that is central to depth psychology’s ongoing quarrel with Cartesian dualism and Christian asceticism.