Simply speaking, Jung got many things wrong and tried to explain them with "spiritual" concepts so vague as to be just woo-woo.

For example, we don't have intuition and feelings as per Jung. We just have perception and thought. Feeling is simply interoception, which, when combined with higher-level symbolic thought and verbal thinking, creates (illusion of) emotions. Similarly, intuition is simply predictive thinking which invokes symbolic thought and subsequently incites (predominantly) feelings, i.e. interoceptory sensations, in the body. Flinging around intuition and feelings as some mystical or sacred states, whatever that means, is what constitutes a woo-woo.

Archetypes, while a sensible and valid idea, are species specific and dependent on its biological (mother, father, death, even fear of spiders, etc.) and social evolution (king, priest, hero, and similar -- compare also how archetypes differ in e.g. Tarot and I-Ching depending on the culture that birthed them). They are not some Platonic universal axioms or other spiritual vagueness floating non-physically who knows where as the majority of contemporary Jungians would like to have it. Even Jung himself was extremely ambiguous on this, although heavily leaning toward non-physical assumptions and subsequent pseudo-explanations. And that is a woo-woo too.

Collective unconscious is akin to a computer cloud. I.e. its content is distributed across individual human nodes via cultural diffusion. It is not some ephemeral non-physical information in some supernatural psychic woo-woo “realm.”

Synchronicities as explained by Jung (acausal events) are complete BS:

https://senderspike.medium.com/science-as-a-metaphor-56294593317b

To Jung’s defense — he didn’t have access to the mountains of sci. data we have today. Then again, all those things can be observed firsthand, if one takes meditation practice at least a little bit seriously, which, I’m afraid, Jung didn’t (clearly too preoccupied with content at the expense of noticing the actual mechanics).