Conversion Theory occupies a singular position within the depth-psychology corpus, standing at the intersection of religious phenomenology, psychopathology, and transformative experience. William James furnishes the foundational architecture: his lectures on conversion in The Varieties of Religious Experience establish conversion as a restructuring of the self’s centre of energy, wherein the subliminal or unconscious life erupts into consciousness and redirects the entire orientation of the person. Kenneth Pargament elaborates this framework clinically, treating conversion as a coping mechanism of the highest order—one that transforms not merely means or ends in isolation but both simultaneously, effecting what he terms a recreation of significance. Ernest Kurtz traces the term’s uncomfortable transit into Alcoholics Anonymous, where it was strategically avoided yet structurally indispensable: the movement from self-centeredness to sobriety is conversion by another name, deeply indebted to James via Bill Wilson. Bruce Alexander complicates the redemptive narrative by situating conversion experiences within dislocation theory, arguing that religious conversion may substitute one form of overwhelming involvement for another without achieving genuine psychosocial integration. Across these positions, key tensions persist: whether conversion is sudden or gradual, pathological or healthy, genuinely transformative or defensively substitutive, and whether its measurable psychological benefits survive longitudinal scrutiny. The term thus remains a contested but indispensable node linking psychology of religion, addiction studies, and theories of radical self-transformation.