Shamanic healing occupies a richly contested position within the depth-psychology corpus, functioning simultaneously as ethnographic datum, archetypal metaphor, and therapeutic model. Mircea Eliade’s foundational taxonomy in Shamanism: Archaic Techniques of Ecstasy (1951) establishes the canonical framework: the shaman’s chief function is healing, accomplished through soul retrieval, extraction of intrusive objects, and ecstatic journeys to spirit realms—practices documented across Siberia, the Americas, and beyond. His descriptive architecture supplies the comparative vocabulary upon which subsequent depth-psychological appropriations depend. Peter Levine draws on the shamanic insight that trauma is a communal, not merely individual, wound, arguing that Western medicine lags behind shamanistic cultures in recognizing this dimension. Shaun McNiff pursues the most sustained therapeutic transposition, treating the shaman as an archetypal figure whose metaphors—soul loss, rhythmic restoration, the ingestion of illness—illuminate creative arts therapy without requiring literal identification. David Abram introduces a corrective tension, warning that popular ‘shamanic healing techniques’ evacuate the shaman’s primary ecological allegiance, reducing a cosmological vocation to personal insight and cure. The field thus holds a productive dialectic between rigorous ethnographic description, Jungian archetypal reframing, somatic therapeutic application, and ecological critique—making shamanic healing one of the corpus’s most generative and contested boundary concepts.