Healing occupies a peculiar and contested position across the depth-psychology corpus: it is simultaneously the declared telos of therapeutic work and the concept most rigorously interrogated by that same work. The field resists any naive equation of healing with cure, insisting instead on a more capacious understanding that encompasses transformation, integration, and the restoration of meaning. Levine grounds healing in the body’s innate biological wisdom, arguing that organisms carry within themselves exquisite processes for renegotiating traumatic fixation—the therapist’s role is supportive scaffolding, not causative agent. McNiff extends healing into the domain of art and creativity, positing rhythm, imagination, and aesthetic contemplation as primal healing forces that predate and exceed the clinical frame. Hollis, drawing on Kafka and Rilke, presses the Jungian insight that genuine healing requires confronting the invisible wound and accepting its transpersonal, graceful character rather than demanding rescue. Maté situates the healing journey within a social-ecological critique, distinguishing healing—the integration of fragmented selfhood—from mere cure of biological symptoms. Across the corpus, two tensions are axial: whether healing is primarily somatic, psychic, or spiritual in locus, and whether it belongs to professional practice or to a universal human inheritance. The wounded-healer archetype, traceable from Chiron and Asklepios through Christ to the contemporary clinician, threads through Sedgwick, von Franz, and López-Pedraza as the paradox at the heart of the entire enterprise.