This paper serves to highlight the confluence and diversity of what may be called political mysticism. It seeks to highlight shared assumptions as well as points of tension against a tentative historical overview of the recent reappraisal of mysticism and mystical theology and its relevance for political thought. Central to this is an identification of a core point of contestation surrounding the necessity and role of intermediaries in the pursuit of union with the divine. Since the debate between Pophyry and Iamblichus this has been a central dividing line that reoccurs in the history of Hellenic and Abrahamic mystical theology. The same debate can be identified in the contemporary literature, and the political implications of mystical theology are profound. If intermediaries are ultimately affirmed, then union with the divine concerns the harmonisation of a differentiated reality held together in right relation; the term 'Hierarchy' was introduced by Pseudo-Dionysius to describe this. Conversely, if intermediaries are ultimately denied, then the goal becomes what Bernard McGinn has termed 'union of indistinction', and relationality itself is held as only provisionally beneficial. The core questions surrounding the political implications of mystical theology hinge on this debate. It speaks to whether union with the divine looks like harmonious social relations with each in their own place, or an anarchical rejection of all worldly authority in favour of a shared 'common life'. This paper looks for ways to explore this tension in a way that allows for a confluence of different approaches to political mysticism rather than split the field between these positions. Framing the broader appeal of political mysticism against the real-world issues that motivate the diverse thinkers working in this space is fundamental to this project.