Eye contact occupies a rich and contested position across the depth-psychology corpus, functioning simultaneously as a neurobiological signal, an attachment indicator, a therapeutic instrument, and a culturally encoded symbol. Neurophysiologically oriented writers — Porges, Dana, Schore — situate eye contact within the social engagement system, treating it as a primary channel through which the autonomic nervous system evaluates safety and initiates or withdraws from connection. For Schore, the infant-mother mutual gaze constitutes the foundational medium of affect regulation; for Dana and Porges, the maintenance or rupture of eye contact in the consulting room is readable as a direct index of vagal state. Trauma theorists such as Heller and Ogden complicate the therapeutic valence of eye contact: both fixed, locked-on gaze and persistent gaze avoidance are understood as dysregulatory phenomena rooted in early attachment failure, and neither more eye contact nor less is naively therapeutic. Ogden additionally frames avoidant gaze as an embodied procedural memory, the posture of a child who learned that proximity seeking is unsafe. Jaynes and Padel reach further back, locating eye contact within evolutionary and classical-cultural frameworks — primate dominance hierarchies, the Greek evil eye, the idol’s open gaze as surrogate authority. Miller addresses cultural relativism and spatial pragmatics in clinical listening. The field thus converges on eye contact as one of the most information-dense nonverbal events in the therapeutic encounter, yet is consistently alert to its ambiguity.