Religious Engagement — encompassing spiritual exercise, ritual practice, and spiritual practice — occupies a richly contested territory within the depth-psychology corpus. The literature ranges from phenomenological accounts of embodied ritual (Fogel, Moore, Johnson) to systematic yogic and contemplative disciplines (Easwaran, Aurobindo, the Philokalia translators), to critical analyses of how spiritual practice may be co-opted by psychological defenses (Welwood, Masters). A recurring tension structures the field: whether religious engagement authentically transforms the self or serves as a vehicle for ego-reinforcement and ‘spiritual bypassing.’ Pargament brings empirical weight to the conversation, documenting how participation in ritual and prayer correlates measurably with coping outcomes in populations under stress. The Daoist material (Kohn) foregrounds communal and liturgical dimensions of practice, while the Christian hesychast tradition (Philokalia) insists on the integration of ascetic practice and contemplative knowledge as mutually necessary. William James frames the problem historically, noting that acute personal religious engagement is perennially in tension with institutionalized, ‘chronic’ religion. What unites these voices is the shared conviction that religious engagement is neither merely symbolic nor merely social, but operates at the intersection of body, psyche, and transcendent orientation — making it indispensable, and also dangerous, ground for psychological inquiry.