Place in the depth-psychology corpus refuses reduction to mere physical location. Across its major voices, it operates simultaneously as psychological container, cosmological principle, symbolic position, and site of soul-making. Hillman’s archetypal psychology treats place as constitutive of psychic life: the locale in which one dwells shapes, and is shaped by, the imaginal life inhabiting it. In Hillman’s bioregional dialogues, the failure to recognize one’s actual place produces the compensatory violence visited upon landscapes; re-inhabitation is thus a psychological as much as an ecological imperative. Thomas Moore extends this toward the sacred, arguing that certain places become ‘filled with soul’ when imagination is permitted to move to depth. Estés situates home not as spatial coordinates but as an internal temporal condition of wholeness. At the cosmological register, Plotinus interrogates the ontological status of place through Aristotelian categories, while Vernant traces how Greek polis-thinking geometrized sacred space into political symmetry, the hearth (Hestia) serving as the rational center of civic spatial order. The I Ching tradition, as transmitted through both Wilhelm and Huang, treats place structurally: each hexagram line occupies a ranked position whose appropriateness or inappropriateness to the quality of the line determines auspiciousness. Place here is relational — a position within a dynamic field — rather than absolute. The through-line across these traditions is that place confers identity, and misalignment between entity and place is a source of pathology, whether psychological, cosmological, or moral.