This work does not constitute an attempt, as an end in itself, to establish a theoretical comparison among Freud, Jung and Bion about the nature and the effectiveness of religious narration. Contrary to the misleading character of the title, a question of clinical nature arises: which space does occupy the mythical apparatus at human disposal, the “sacred”, in the relationship between the analyst and the analysand? From wat perspective can it be watched, stated, touched? First and foremost, the objective will be, through the specific contribution of the above mentioned authors, to understand what we are referring to by the term “sacred”. Our “sacred”, in fact, doesn’t correspond with the mythical religious narration: its truth value is revealed both in the religious and in the scientific narration. By putting on an equal footing science and religion, but without denying their different implications, the narrative insistence can be released as opposed to the truth criteria that still pervade it. In other words, the aim is to decentralize from that “truth” that magnetically lure our narrative productions, and to understand why, given it cannot currently be removed, it presents itself in many different mechanism of complete identification with the narration, whether it is scientific or religious, to such an extent that we are able to state that just when the human beings don’t recognise themselves “in the myth” anymore, they are completely in the myth. It is only by accepting the two implications of this work, that is the acknowledgement of a truth that pierce the narrative and constructive insistences, and, in the meantime, the need for a decentralization as opposed to the truth above, that the real meaning of a dimension clinically expendable, the “sacred”, can be understood.