Building comfort studies—such as occupant satisfaction surveys—are primarily designed to capture subjective experience rather than objective health outcomes. They ask people how they feel in a space: whether they are too hot, too cold, distracted, or comfortable. While this provides valuable insight into psychological well-being and perceived environmental quality, it does not directly measure the physical condition of the building or its impact on biological health. The limitation is built into the method itself. Because responses depend on an occupant’s overall perception of their environment, the data reflects personal interpretation, mood, and expectation as much as it does measurable environmental reality. In this way, comfort becomes a proxy for psychological health—how at ease or supported someone feels in a space—rather than a measure of the building’s actual environmental integrity. Many building managers stop at this level because it is manageable and non-invasive. Satisfaction data is easy to collect and presents well in reports, emphasizing visible factors such as lighting, cleanliness, or maintenance. These indicators tell us more about perceived order and care than about the physiological safety of the environment—for example, indoor air quality, microbial presence, or chemical exposure. Asking about physical health—headaches, respiratory irritation, fatigue, or allergies—would require confronting the building as a living system capable of affecting the human body, introducing questions of responsibility that most management frameworks are not structured to address. However, the connection between comfort and health cannot be dismissed. Psychological stressors within a building—difficulty concentrating due to distractions, persistent noise from density, lack of privacy, or even the height of partitions—can gradually translate into physiological vulnerability. Constant low-level stress affects the immune system and decision-making, leading to fatigue and reduced attention to hygiene or self-care. In this way, discomfort increases the likelihood that an occupant may become susceptible to infections or contaminants already present in the environment. What begins as a “comfort issue” (sound, temperature, or spatial crowding) can thus become a biological health concern mediated through psychological strain. Building health, therefore, must be understood as a continuum that begins with psychological comfort, extends through behavioral response, and culminates in biological outcomes. True building health requires moving beyond satisfaction metrics toward measurable indicators of environmental quality—ATP testing, air sampling, EMF exposure, and microbial load—while still acknowledging that psychological harmony is the first line of defense. A building that supports calm, concentration, and a sense of care actively strengthens the body’s natural resilience. In this sense, comfort is not the absence of complaint but the presence of coherence—a state where the occupant and environment are in functional alignment. When that relationship is disrupted, the building itself becomes a stressor. When it is preserved, the building becomes part of the immune system.