Invulnerability occupies a peculiar and revealing position in the depth-psychological corpus: it appears simultaneously as a legitimate spiritual attainment, a defensive psychological illusion, and an archetypal aspiration whose pursuit may itself betray psychic immaturity. The range of treatments is considerable. In yogic and shamanic registers — Armstrong on Buddhist meditation, Eliade on archaic ecstasy — invulnerability names a genuine, if temporary, acquisition: the skilled practitioner’s achieved imperviousness to environmental disturbance. The Philokalia tradition translates the concept into hesychast terms, presenting a perfected dispassion that renders the intellect ‘invulnerable and invincible.’ Plotinus offers a philosophically precise version: the essential man, the Sage, is immune to magical influence at the level of the reasoning soul, though the unreasoning element remains susceptible. By contrast, Hillman’s archetypal psychology reads the puer’s craving for invulnerability as a symptomatic demand — the son seeking from the mother a guarantee that existential risk shall be abolished. Pargament’s social-psychological register shows how collective myths of invulnerability, once shattered by historical trauma, generate religious crisis. Across these positions, a central tension persists: invulnerability as genuine inner freedom from passion versus invulnerability as inflation, magical thinking, or flight from the vulnerability that constitutes authentic experience.