Within the depth-psychology corpus, insight occupies a contested and multi-layered position: it is simultaneously a neurobiological event, a therapeutic mechanism, a mode of intuitive knowing, and a spiritual achievement. McGilchrist marshals the most systematic empirical case, demonstrating that the right hemisphere — and specifically the right anterior superior temporal gyrus — plays a uniquely privileged role in the ‘aha!’ moment, distinguishing insight-based solutions from serial, analytic problem-solving, and correlating sudden illumination with higher accuracy rates than incremental analysis. This neuroscientific framing converges, unexpectedly, with Aurobindo’s yogic epistemology, in which insight appears as a ‘lightning-flash’ from a higher knowledge-plane breaking into the ordinary mentality. Yalom, writing from the existential-humanistic tradition, decouples insight from any specific theoretical content, arguing that its therapeutic value lies in conferring a sense of mastery and coherent meaning upon experience rather than in revealing any particular ‘deeper’ truth. Levine and the somatic tradition challenge insight’s primacy altogether, insisting that lasting psychological change is more a bottom-up, embodied process than a cognitive one. Kurtz positions insight as a bridge between ancient religious understanding and modern psychological necessity in the AA tradition. Across these divergent frameworks, a common tension persists: insight as sudden, whole, non-discursive apprehension versus insight as an artifact of prior, laborious preparation.