The temple in the depth-psychology and comparative-religion corpus functions as one of the most semantically dense architectural symbols available to the scholarly imagination. Eliade establishes the governing theoretical framework: the temple is simultaneously an imago mundi—a microcosmic reproduction of the cosmos—and a celestial archetype made terrestrial, an axis through which the world is continuously resanctified. This cosmological-ontological reading pervades the comparative literature, finding confirmation in Mesopotamian ziggurats, Hindu mandala-temples, and the Khmer complexes of Angkor. Burkert, working from a historicist vantage, complicates Eliade’s idealism by tracing the material evolution of the Greek temple from the humble hearth-house and open-air altar, insisting that the living cult center was always the altar, not the temple proper, which functioned as a treasury and image-house rather than a congregational space. Jung and the alchemical tradition internalize the temple as psychic symbol: Zosimos’s circular temple, which has ‘neither beginning nor end in its construction,’ becomes the uroboric self. The New Testament theology of the Pauline letters extends this internalization by identifying the believing community—and the individual body—as the ‘temple of the living God.’ Corbin, reading Ibn Arabi, makes the temple (bayt) a visionary form arising at the threshold of divine Unity. These vectors—cosmological, cultic-historical, alchemical-psychological, and mystical—together constitute the term’s remarkable theoretical range.