The term ‘Supreme Being’ occupies a contested but persistent place across the depth-psychology corpus, where it functions less as a settled theological category than as a site of ongoing negotiation between metaphysical, experiential, and psychological registers. Plotinus establishes the foundational tension: the Supreme is beyond predication, beyond even self-affirmation of Being or Goodness, yet it is the source from which all reality emanates and to which the soul returns in mystical union. Aurobindo reframes this inheritance through an integral lens, treating the Supreme as the infinite Existence-Consciousness-Bliss (Sachchidananda) that is simultaneously transcendent, cosmic, and individual — not a remote Absolute but an immanent creative power whose self-expression is the very purpose of terrestrial evolution. Eliade, approaching from comparative religion, documents how archaic peoples configure a celestial Supreme Being who nonetheless retreats into passivity — a ‘remote god’ whose structural inaccessibility generates the practical religion of intermediary spirits and shamanic technique. Dihle locates, in Philo’s Platonism, the philosophical crystallisation of a Supreme Being in whom thought, action, and existence are identical — a definition that will condition Christian theology. Gnostic sources rendered through Meyer press the Supreme toward radical apophasis: the One is ‘greater than a god,’ illimitable, unnameable, pure light. The AA tradition, as analysed by Schaberg, instrumentalises the term as a deliberately broad container for providential belief, yet quietly restricts it to a personal, accessible deity. Across these registers the central tension is between apophatic transcendence and relational immanence.