The tension between divine presence and divine absence constitutes one of the most generative fault-lines in the depth-psychological corpus. The question is not merely theological but ontological and psychological: do the gods depart, or does human perception of them dissolve? Hillman, drawing on Heidegger’s dürftige Zeit, refuses the premise of genuine divine withdrawal, insisting that powers intrinsic to the world’s variety cannot logically vacate it — a position that reframes ‘absence’ as a failure of human attunement rather than cosmic abandonment. Jaynes locates the historical crisis of divine absence concretely: the breakdown of the bicameral mind produced a civilization-wide loss of the hallucinated god-voice, and the ziggurats, psalms, and theodicies of the first millennium BCE are monuments to that bereavement. Vernant illuminates the paradox from the Greek representational tradition — the very project of statuary is to ‘inscribe absence in presence,’ to make invisible powers visible in terrestrial form. Romanyshyn, via Heidegger and Jung, reads divine absence hermeneutically: the gods who have fled leave a ‘scent’ in the ordinary world, making absence itself a mode of haunting presence. Glaz, working empirically, demonstrates that both experiences — presence and absence of God — function as psychologically real poles of religious life, each with distinct affective and relational signatures. The corpus therefore holds these terms not as opposites but as a dialectical couplet, each defining and deepening the other.