We are pleased and grateful to have such a rich set of responses to our paper, which challenge our premises and creatively elaborate on them. We stand by our contention that recent writings in the nascent field of psychedelic-assisted psychoanalysis take too far analogies between oceanic states of consciousness and early childhood mentation, and thus prejudice how oceanic states are seen. We attempt to clarify confusion about the different meanings of regression and further distinguish regression from expansion. We support the practical clinical advice offered when working therapeutically with expanded states of consciousness and agree with the importance of stabilizing and integrating witnessing and perspective-taking capacities. Finally, we appreciate the dilemma of language in discussing experiences like oneness states that generate a “feeling of the sacred,” and clarify our reason for avoiding saturated terms that suggest religious or spiritual meanings.