Orientation
The term homo religiosus — ‘religious man’ as a structural type rather than a historical individual — occupies a central and contested position across the depth-psychology corpus. Mircea Eliade, its principal theorist, deploys the concept to designate a mode of being-in-the-world oriented toward the sacred, one that stands in constitutive contrast to the desacralized existence of modern secular humanity. For Eliade, homo religiosus is not merely pious but ontologically organized: he inhabits a sanctified cosmos, imitates divine paradigms, and undergoes initiatory death and rebirth as the very grammar of meaningful existence. Karen Armstrong extends the thesis anthropologically, arguing that Homo sapiens is co-extensively Homo religiosus — that religiosity is not an ideological overlay but a constitutive feature of human self-making from the earliest evidence of art and culture. Von Franz, writing from within the Jungian tradition, finds the concept confirmed by depth psychology itself: the recognition of the unconscious returns modern consciousness, on a higher arc, to precisely the condition of exposure to unknown psychic powers that characterized archaic religious man. Walter F. Otto frames the modern retreat from homo religiosus as a specifically post-Darwinian, post-Freudian phenomenon. Vernant employs the term as a historical marker demarcating archaic from classical Greek mentality. What unites these voices — and what makes the term indispensable for this library — is the shared premise that the secular subject is a late, fragile, and in some respects impoverished derivation from a more primordially religious ancestor.