Ego Transparency occupies a contested and multivalent position across the depth-psychology corpus, appearing in registers as divergent as clinical group psychotherapy, Buddhist-inflected self-psychology, and Lacanian structural analysis. In the group-therapy literature — most extensively in Yalom and in Flores’s treatment of addicted populations — therapist transparency names the deliberate, calibrated self-disclosure by which the therapist modulates the analytic frame, challenges transferential distortion, and models authentic interpersonal contact. Here the term carries a technical weight: transparency is weighed against opaqueness on a functional axis, its degree and timing regarded as the single most differentiating variable across schools of group therapy. A separate but related current, traceable through Ferenczi’s radical experiments in mutual analysis, raises the question of whether any ceiling on transparency is theoretically justified or merely a concession to professional convention. In the Buddhist-psychotherapy dialogue prosecuted by Epstein and Welwood, ego transparency shifts register entirely: the ego is conceived as an energetically opaque structure — ‘thick, tight, and opaque’ in Welwood’s phrasing — and transparency becomes an aspirational quality of mind achieved when self-boundaries relax and awareness opens beyond personal identity. Masters’s critique of spiritual bypassing adds a cautionary note, distinguishing genuine transparency from the ‘hollowness confused with transparency’ that marks depersonalized spirituality. The term thus sits at the intersection of clinical technique, phenomenology of self, and contemplative psychology, embodying fundamental tensions between disclosure as therapeutic instrument and transparency as ontological condition of awakened awareness.