Within the depth-psychology corpus, ‘exposure’ operates across at least three distinct registers that rarely speak directly to one another yet share a common logic: the confrontation with avoided stimuli as a mechanism of therapeutic change, the epidemiological tracking of adverse childhood and environmental conditions, and the mythic-symbolic sense of being laid bare or abandoned. The clinical-behavioral strand, represented most fully by LeDoux and Harris, debates whether exposure achieves its effects through extinction (inhibitory learning) or through the broader cultivation of response flexibility; Harris reframes ACT-informed exposure as ‘mindful, values-guided’ work whose goal is not symptom reduction but behavioral repertoire expansion. Shapiro situates exposure within a comparative landscape of trauma protocols, noting empirical limits even in well-structured programs. Najavits introduces a safety-first caution, insisting that exposure with complex PTSD populations requires exceptional scaffolding. Bettmann’s meta-analytic work extends the concept toward environmental dose-response research, treating ‘nature exposure’ as a measurable therapeutic variable. Abraham and Freud preserve an older psychoanalytic resonance: light-aversion, scopophilia, and the terrifying gaze as forms of psychic exposure to the paternal/solar eye. Hillman, finally, recovers the mythological stratum — the exposed infant on the hillside — as an archetypal image of what must be found and sheltered by the therapeutic shepherd. The field’s central tension is whether exposure is a mechanistic extinction procedure or a relational and values-laden encounter with the avoided.