Soul Care — or care of the soul, from the Latin cura animae — occupies a pivotal position in the depth-psychological corpus as a practice fundamentally distinct from clinical cure, symptom management, or ego-enhancement. Thomas Moore, drawing on James Hillman’s archetypal psychology and the Renaissance Neoplatonism of Marsilio Ficino, articulates the term’s fullest modern formulation: soul care is an ongoing, never-completed attentiveness to the soul’s expressions in ordinary life — in symptoms, moods, relationships, dreams, art, and the body. Where cure implies termination of trouble, care implies endless devotion. Moore insists that the phrase admits a double reading: we care for the soul, and the soul — even in its pathology — cares for us. This reciprocity is philosophically significant, displacing the heroic, problem-solving model of psychotherapy in favor of a Taoist receptivity, a homeopathic befriending of whatever the psyche presents. Hillman’s background presence informs the insistence that soul-loss, not mental disease, underlies modern suffering. Estés enriches the tradition by tracing the soul’s suppression to the ego’s appetitive dominance, particularly in women’s psychic life. Across these voices, soul care emerges as a counter-cultural stance against secularism, efficiency, and the medical reduction of psychological suffering — a reclamation of depth, myth, and imaginal life as the proper medicine of the soul.