Astrology and Physical Appearance (With ideas on human biology and psychology)

Ukpoohbear

Well-known member
How annoying Astro is not more accurate.

I have come to fully agree about Sun Pluto aspects. I know a man with Sun trine Pluto and he is so handsome.
 

Animatrix

Well-known member
How annoying Astro is not more accurate.

I have come to fully agree about Sun Pluto aspects. I know a man with Sun trine Pluto and he is so handsome.

Yeah, when it comes to magnetism, Pluto has no equal. Grace Kelly had Sun trine Pluto.

I knew a man who had Sun trine Pluto, and he was the most handsome man I have ever come across in my life. Had he been famous, he would be a world famous male beauty icon.
 

Animatrix

Well-known member
I want to give you a link to two youtube videos. One being a part of a playlist.
First being cosmetique astrology. She is a vedic astrologer and does follow the sidereal zodiac. However, she's on point about the physical appearance.

She analyzes physical appearance accordingly to the decan(nakshatra) of the sign.

I use tropical zodiac as I have been convinced about the legitimacy about it, but greatly rely on the nakshatras(decans). So this is what I think: nakshatras stay the same, the signs that THEY ARE IN have changed in the last thousands of years. That has to do with equinoxes and other things but that discussion will be saved for a different time.

Here's one of her videos, you can find the rest of her videos in her youtube channel. Basically there are 27 nakshatras(decans) and each nakshatra is ruled by a particular sign. Accordingly, the nakshatras ruled by the same planet will share particular traits not only in personality but also their appearance.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WgLVknU5AOo

The second video is from a tropical western astrologer Santos Bonnaci

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OhzediNStvU&t=4258s

This goes into depth about the zodiac signs and their facial structures. He gives emphasis on the sun saying how it is the most prominant indicator when it comes to appearance but also says that the moon and ascendent play MORE of a part if you were born at night time.

So after going through these videos, what I would analyze is what facial shape the person has and maybe even the body type and to definitely personality, demeaneor etc. Then I would look at how big the eyes are, the lips, the bone structure, etc and this will tell you what nakshatra they are in and what planet ruling the nakshatra(decan ) they are in is influencing their appearance.

I'm getting better at recognizing signs. I've recognized two people's signs recently and got it right. I'll give you an example just to demonstrate.

Indra Verma-she was also in the game of thrones-I watched her in kama sutra yesterday and I guessed right away she was a libra. God was she irresistable in that movie. She has an oval face, almond eyes, and a very symmetrical face altogether.

Let me tell you something else. Anyone that looks like Kate Upton, Anna Nicole Smith most likely has a mars ruled nakshatra. I've seen it so many times.

https://www.cosmetiqueastrology.com/
This site is very important. The same youtuber that made the first video to the link I put in.

Anyways, there are definitely other factors. Katy Perry looks like zooey deschenel. One is triple capricorn and the other is triple scorpio but also katy perry has saturn on her ascendent and mercury also conjunct her ascendent. Whereas zooey has mercury conjunct ascendent with a capricorn ascendent.

So definitely like traditional astrology says, the Ascendent I would say is probably the most important.

Your analysis on signs is very interesting. I have moon in taurus and I've been actually told I have sleepy eyes. LOL Other than that, I would definitely range from one end of the spectrum to the other in terms of the nervous and skinny archetype to the healthy. Sun in Capricorn. Ascendent in libra

The sun with the ascendent in my opinion doesn't always make one lightest. In my opinion it gives a sort of vitamin D rich appearance golden tan type of appearance. Think hooter girl tans, maybe slightly lighter. They're never the fairest though. I think the water signs give a very fair appearance. I have sun square ascendent. I am of south asian descent (bangladesh) and one side of my family include those with green eyes, and some with really fair skin.(which is very uncommon for bengalis) I am lighter than most of the people in my country(not that it's a good thing) but fair I am not. My skin tone is the colour of coffee and no green eyes unfortunately.

Hard to read on that websites and I don't like watching videos! I like to read at my own speed. But.. the websites says that the Nodes influence appearance? I have never Heard this actually.
 

love-thinking

Well-known member
Hard to read on that websites and I don't like watching videos! I like to read at my own speed. But.. the websites says that the Nodes influence appearance? I have never Heard this actually.

Well in vedic astrology, the nodes are very important. They have a myth about it as well. I fuse the two together. Think of me as a tropical vedic astrologer.

If you do watch her videos, she does have content that are meaningful. In regards to the nodes, she says that people who have nakshatras (moon, sun ascendent) that is ruled by the north and south node(Rahu and ketu) and who have rahu and ketu in the first or second house (in vedic astrology, the face is ruled by the second house).

She says that rahu dominant women-they have huge eyes that are electrifying, their look is almost dark and hypnotizing.

South node women have big eyes but they seem more innocent but gothic in a way. They also seem to have huge lips. They are almost always portrayed in gothic horror movies. And their looks are dark. If they are of european descent in other words white, they tend to have darkest possible hair colour and the contrast is gerogeous(like snow white). If they are not white, they tend to have darker skin tones.

Venus dominant women (remember those with nakshatras ruled by venus and or venus in first house or second-usually a combination of two) have almond but big eyes. Cat eyes.

Moon and sun dominant women have narrower eyes. Sun women are pretty and regal with narrow eyes, a squarish or large jaw, good bone struture. Eg most of taurus is Krithika-ruled by the sun. Tauruses are said to have square jaw lines. Think katherine hepburn.

Moon dominant women are very feminine. They tend to be fleshy but not the fattest kind. They also have narrow eyes, have a medium height and are very feminine.

Mercury women are pixie like. Small, dainty and skinny with pretty and seductive features. Women are usually jealous of them when they are younger because if they happen to be pretty, they are also cunning and seductive.

Mars women are very sexy. They typically have beautiful bodies that they love to show off. What I've seen is that if they are white and have blonde hair in their gene pool, they tend to look like Anna nicole smiths and kate uptons of the world. And these two actually do look very similar.

Anyways, they obviously don't use pluto or neptune or uranus. And there are no nakshatra that rules these planets. I'd say check her out. Some of her nakshatra portions in her website have look a likes so she's definitely coming from somewhere.

I'll admit she's closed minded to infuse western astrology techniques and planets to her research but that's just what she's used to.
 

Animatrix

Well-known member
Well in vedic astrology, the nodes are very important. They have a myth about it as well. I fuse the two together. Think of me as a tropical vedic astrologer.

If you do watch her videos, she does have content that are meaningful. In regards to the nodes, she says that people who have nakshatras (moon, sun ascendent) that is ruled by the north and south node(Rahu and ketu) and who have rahu and ketu in the first or second house (in vedic astrology, the face is ruled by the second house).

She says that rahu dominant women-they have huge eyes that are electrifying, their look is almost dark and hypnotizing.

South node women have big eyes but they seem more innocent but gothic in a way. They also seem to have huge lips. They are almost always portrayed in gothic horror movies. And their looks are dark. If they are of european descent in other words white, they tend to have darkest possible hair colour and the contrast is gerogeous(like snow white). If they are not white, they tend to have darker skin tones.

Venus dominant women (remember those with nakshatras ruled by venus and or venus in first house or second-usually a combination of two) have almond but big eyes. Cat eyes.

Moon and sun dominant women have narrower eyes. Sun women are pretty and regal with narrow eyes, a squarish or large jaw, good bone struture. Eg most of taurus is Krithika-ruled by the sun. Tauruses are said to have square jaw lines. Think katherine hepburn.

Moon dominant women are very feminine. They tend to be fleshy but not the fattest kind. They also have narrow eyes, have a medium height and are very feminine.

Mercury women are pixie like. Small, dainty and skinny with pretty and seductive features. Women are usually jealous of them when they are younger because if they happen to be pretty, they are also cunning and seductive.

Mars women are very sexy. They typically have beautiful bodies that they love to show off. What I've seen is that if they are white and have blonde hair in their gene pool, they tend to look like Anna nicole smiths and kate uptons of the world. And these two actually do look very similar.

Anyways, they obviously don't use pluto or neptune or uranus. And there are no nakshatra that rules these planets. I'd say check her out. Some of her nakshatra portions in her website have look a likes so she's definitely coming from somewhere.

I'll admit she's closed minded to infuse western astrology techniques and planets to her research but that's just what she's used to.

It makes a lot of sense. I wonder if she could guess my appearance, if I gave her my chart. :p I am Mercury/Sun dominant.
 

love-thinking

Well-known member
It makes a lot of sense. I wonder if she could guess my appearance, if I gave her my chart. :p I am Mercury/Sun dominant.

Do you know your nakshatra placements? If you give me the degrees of your sun, moon and ascendent I can tell you your nakshatras. And trust me they help in understanding yourself.
 

Kannon

Well-known member
Animatrix, good luck to you in this very worthy line of study. I think you'll be interested in my two pages on rising signs:
The first is descriptions of each rising sign with some physical characteristics:
http://kannonmcafee.wordpress.com/rising-signs/

The second (linked there) gives celebrity examples:
https://kannonmcafee.wordpress.com/rising-signs-2/
Each individual has been verified through chart validation (rectification) by me or another expert.

I have also gathered planet/Asc examples and plan to add another examples page for that. Your thread here has reminded me to do that.
 

Animatrix

Well-known member
Animatrix, good luck to you in this very worthy line of study. I think you'll be interested in my two pages on rising signs:
The first is descriptions of each rising sign with some physical characteristics:
http://kannonmcafee.wordpress.com/rising-signs/

The second (linked there) gives celebrity examples:
https://kannonmcafee.wordpress.com/rising-signs-2/
Each individual has been verified through chart validation (rectification) by me or another expert.

I have also gathered planet/Asc examples and plan to add another examples page for that. Your thread here has reminded me to do that.

It's very interesting but I disagree with Martin Luther King Jr being Aries ascendant, look his face, it is very Taurean and his Eyes are a Little sleepy - he was a very "sensual" person, with sex scandals.

It's incredibly difficult to guess the ascendant because sometimes the Sun sign is very dominant.

There are other mistakes there; Angelina Jolie is by no means Leo Rising - she is Cancer Rising, and I'm 100% sure of that. Johnny Depp though looks very much Leo.

One way to guess the ascendant/sun is to look out for animal characteristics. Each sign (with the exception of Libra and Aquarius) do often possess the features of an animal. Aries will resemble the ram, with a sheep-like look, yet very handsome. Taurus looks bull-like or cow-like, Gemini = dog like features, Cancer = crab like features; peculiar gait, broad bodies, thin arms, a sort of primitive look, Leo is easiest to spot, because the lion-like features are often very marked; see Arnold Schwarzenegger for example. Virgo has fox-like features, with cunning Eyes, Scorpio looks primitive, Sagittarius horse-like, Capricorn goat-like and Pisces usually have something fishy about them, like an animated human fish.
 

Kannon

Well-known member
It's very interesting but I disagree with Martin Luther King Jr being Aries ascendant, look his face, it is very Taurean and his Eyes are a Little sleepy - he was a very "sensual" person, with sex scandals.

Dr King's Asc was contra-parallel Venus and Moon, which affected his appearance and personality. Planets are stronger than signs. It is easy to disagree on first reaction, but I've verified his chart meticulously.

There are other mistakes there; Angelina Jolie is by no means Leo Rising - she is Cancer Rising, and I'm 100% sure of that.

Check again, but look more deeply into her chart this time. Her chart is a very good example of internal chart rectifying metrics (progression of Uranus/ruler of 7th to natal Sun/ruler of 1st, which I explained on the Horoscope Detective's radio show). Take longer to study the power of planets and the declinations factors. She has Neptune in aspect to her correct Asc, which is a water factor.

One way to guess the ascendant/sun is to look out for animal characteristics. Each sign (with the exception of Libra and Aquarius) do often possess the features of an animal.

This is the basic stereotype level about signs that I eschew. I address it on that page. What I do goes deeper than these stereotypes. Take a look at my main rising sign page. Planets are always more influential when the aspects are there and modify the personality and even physical features from what can be expected based on sign alone.

You're on the right track in many things you've stated earlier and in the examples you've used, but over-estimate your level of understanding. Include the declinations -- parallels and contra-parallels are far too often omitted, keeping many charts from being tightened up accurately.
 

Animatrix

Well-known member
Dr King's Asc was contra-parallel Venus and Moon, which affected his appearance and personality. Planets are stronger than signs. It is easy to disagree on first reaction, but I've verified his chart meticulously.



Check again, but look more deeply into her chart this time. Her chart is a very good example of internal chart rectifying metrics (progression of Uranus/ruler of 7th to natal Sun/ruler of 1st, which I explained on the Horoscope Detective's radio show). Take longer to study the power of planets and the declinations factors. She has Neptune in aspect to her correct Asc, which is a water factor.



This is the basic stereotype level about signs that I eschew. I address it on that page. What I do goes deeper than these stereotypes. Take a look at my main rising sign page. Planets are always more influential when the aspects are there and modify the personality and even physical features from what can be expected based on sign alone.

You're on the right track in many things you've stated earlier and in the examples you've used, but over-estimate your level of understanding. Include the declinations -- parallels and contra-parallels are far too often omitted, keeping many charts from being tightened up accurately.

With all due respect, Angelina Jolie is not Leo rising! I don't believe that. And she is an obvious Venus conjunct ascendant-person.

But I agree that planets and its aspects often are more important than the signs. But Angelina Jolie has Venus conjunct ascendant, I insist on that. She moves like a Cancer, she has that broad body but with thin arms, she is cancer rising!!!! Please show me proof that she is Leo. And I see literally nothing Aries in Martin Luther King. Nothing at all, he looks very Taurean.

But I admit that my knowledge is quite limited! I am only good at seeing Pluto on the Sun/asc
 
Last edited:

love-thinking

Well-known member
Dr King's Asc was contra-parallel Venus and Moon, which affected his appearance and personality. Planets are stronger than signs. It is easy to disagree on first reaction, but I've verified his chart meticulously.



Check again, but look more deeply into her chart this time. Her chart is a very good example of internal chart rectifying metrics (progression of Uranus/ruler of 7th to natal Sun/ruler of 1st, which I explained on the Horoscope Detective's radio show). Take longer to study the power of planets and the declinations factors. She has Neptune in aspect to her correct Asc, which is a water factor.



This is the basic stereotype level about signs that I eschew. I address it on that page. What I do goes deeper than these stereotypes. Take a look at my main rising sign page. Planets are always more influential when the aspects are there and modify the personality and even physical features from what can be expected based on sign alone.

You're on the right track in many things you've stated earlier and in the examples you've used, but over-estimate your level of understanding. Include the declinations -- parallels and contra-parallels are far too often omitted, keeping many charts from being tightened up accurately.

Is contraparallel opposition and parralel conjunction? And from your opinion, sun, ascendent, moon or chart ruler, what influences the appearances more? Does it matter what time of the day the person was born? I heard from someone that night time people resemble their moon and sun more. And you say the planets in aspect to the ascendent matter more? How big do the orbs have to be and what aspects? Only hard aspects or only conjunction or easy aspects do as well?

Sorry I know it's a lot of questions.
 

love-thinking

Well-known member
With all due respect, Angelina Jolie is not Leo rising! I don't believe that. And she is an obvious Venus conjunct ascendant-person.

But I agree that planets and its aspects often are more important than the signs. But Angelina Jolie has Venus conjunct ascendant, I insist on that. She moves like a Cancer, she has that broad body but with thin arms, she is cancer rising!!!! Please show me proof that she is Leo. And I see literally nothing Aries in Martin Luther King. Nothing at all, he looks very Taurean.

But I admit that my knowledge is quite limited! I am only good at seeing Pluto on the Sun/asc

You are definitely right about angelina jolie. But martin luther king seems to have a very cardinal face to me with his round face and almond eyes. But you are right his eyes do look sleepy.

A taurean face pertaining to his racial background would be Chris Brown.
 

Animatrix

Well-known member
You are definitely right about angelina jolie. But martin luther king seems to have a very cardinal face to me with his round face and almond eyes. But you are right his eyes do look sleepy.

A taurean face pertaining to his racial background would be Chris Brown.

Yes he looks very bull-like:
aa_king_subj_m.jpg

I don't see that natural exuberance of energy and confidence as Aries rising people have in him. He was a very sensual person as well, actually involved in a lot of sex scandals.
 

love-thinking

Well-known member
Yes he looks very bull-like:
aa_king_subj_m.jpg

I don't see that natural exuberance of energy and confidence as Aries rising people have in him. He was a very sensual person as well, actually involved in a lot of sex scandals.

I totally see what you mean actually but he may be right about the venus aspecting his ascendent. The thing is he has a very cardinal face and the almond eyes is usually exclusive to libra, aries and capricorn although cancers may have bigger eyes. The cardinal signs tend to have round to oval faces. Capricorns however tend to have foxy appearances with amazing bone structures. They look cold. Aries and Libras both have a little more oval face with almond eyes, although libras look more friendlier and tend to have a little bigger eyes and maybe some dimples than their aries counterpart.

I believe the mutable signs have a longer face, more oval.


I do however have a hard time differentiating tauruses and scorpios. They both tend to have a squarish face. I guess the nose gives it away? Anyways, try and look at leonardo divinci. He is a moon, and ascendent in libra. He was born at night time and he also has pluto conjunct ascendent. His facial structure seems to be between oval and square and his eyes give off a libra vibe. He has a very libran way, and look about him but there is still an intensity that is exclusive to pluto. He is like the perfect blend of libra and scorpio and as he is getting older, I think his pluto is more prevelant.


However, astrotheme says he is a taurus ascendent so I'm soo confused right now. lol
 
Last edited:

love-thinking

Well-known member
Yes he looks very bull-like:
aa_king_subj_m.jpg

I don't see that natural exuberance of energy and confidence as Aries rising people have in him. He was a very sensual person as well, actually involved in a lot of sex scandals.

Well in that case, his face is explained by capricorn sun, a cardinal sign and his sleepy eyes -but not bovine eyes is explained by taurus ascendent. Also he was born in the day time, so it explains why he looks more like a capricorn than any other sign.
 

Animatrix

Well-known member
I totally see what you mean actually but he may be right about the venus aspecting his ascendent. The thing is he has a very cardinal face and the almond eyes is usually exclusive to libra, aries and capricorn although cancers may have bigger eyes. The cardinal signs tend to have round to oval faces. Capricorns however tend to have foxy appearances with amazing bone structures. They look cold. Aries and Libras both have a little more oval face with almond eyes, although libras look more friendlier and tend to have a little bigger eyes and maybe some dimples than their aries counterpart.

I believe the mutable signs have a longer face, more oval.


I do however have a hard time differentiating tauruses and scorpios. They both tend to have a squarish face. I guess the nose gives it away? Anyways, try and look at leonardo divinci. He is a moon, and ascendent in libra. He was born at night time and he also has pluto conjunct ascendent. His facial structure seems to be between oval and square and his eyes give off a libra vibe. He has a very libran way, and look about him but there is still an intensity that is exclusive to pluto. He is like the perfect blend of libra and scorpio and as he is getting older, I think his pluto is more prevelant.


However, astrotheme says he is a taurus ascendent so I'm soo confused right now. But then again, race needs to be taken account of. I've only been analyzing caucasian features and celebrities. What is the average face shape of different ethnicities? lol

I've never seen foxy appearance in a Capricorn, only in Virgo and sometimes in Aquarius, slightly. Mercury tends to give off this dog-like features. Gemini (Mercury) has dog-like features, sometimes very striking. Virgo is the fox, and Aquarius (Uranus - the higher octave) tend to be more human, but sometimes, sometimes, they do have something foxy about them. Aries often has ram-like features. Aries men are extremely handsome. Just look at Anderson Silva - i don't know his ascendant since birth time is unknown, but he got striking ram-like features. He looks good especially in the octagon (he is a MMA-fighter). And this is what is so hard, because Sun, Moon and ascendant all influence the appearance (the moon in females) and sometimes I mistake people for a particular sign, but then they have that sign as ascendant or moon, or I mistake their ascendant when it is in fact the Sun. When I first saw Errol Flynn I thought; "He is Aries!" yet he has Aries ascendant, and when I look closer I can see the mix of the gemini/aries, and I thought Ingrid Bergman was Aries too - she got Aries Moon.

So it must be extremely difficult to guess the ascendant and the moon and the sun by looking at the appearance. I have seen one astrologer who could tell people's sun signs right away. It was very impressive. But he said that he looked at body language, and not appearance, and that makes sense since Sun ought to be the major factor in body language.

Edit: Sometimes Aquarius got some features from a dog-like creature, maybe another type of animal that is in the same family as the dog and the fox. Dno. But it is very interesting because, if you look at the typical Gemini, they are usually a little like dogs, or should we say that dogs are like geminis? Playful, curious, no focus, fun-loving and Virgo (analytical, cunning, discriminative and cautious) are like foxes, foxes are very much so as animals.
 
Last edited:

love-thinking

Well-known member
I've never seen foxy appearance in a Capricorn, only in Virgo and sometimes in Aquarius, slightly. Mercury tends to give off this dog-like features. Gemini (Mercury) has dog-like features, sometimes very striking. Virgo is the fox, and Aquarius (Uranus - the higher octave) tend to be more human, but sometimes, sometimes, they do have something foxy about them. Aries often has ram-like features. Aries men are extremely handsome. Just look at Anderson Silva - i don't know his ascendant since birth time is unknown, but he got striking ram-like features. He looks good especially in the octagon (he is a MMA-fighter). And this is what is so hard, because Sun, Moon and ascendant all influence the appearance (the moon in females) and sometimes I mistake people for a particular sign, but then they have that sign as ascendant or moon, or I mistake their ascendant when it is in fact the Sun. When I first saw Errol Flynn I thought; "He is Aries!" yet he has Aries ascendant, and when I look closer I can see the mix of the gemini/aries, and I thought Ingrid Bergman was Aries too - she got Aries Moon.

So it must be extremely difficult to guess the ascendant and the moon and the sun by looking at the appearance. I have seen one astrologer who could tell people's sun signs right away. It was very impressive. But he said that he looked at body language, and not appearance, and that makes sense since Sun ought to be the major factor in body language.

Edit: Sometimes Aquarius got some features from a dog-like creature, maybe another type of animal that is in the same family as the dog and the fox. Dno. But it is very interesting because, if you look at the typical Gemini, they are usually a little like dogs, or should we say that dogs are like geminis? Playful, curious, no focus, fun-loving and Virgo (analytical, cunning, discriminative and cautious) are like foxes, foxes are very much so as animals.

Sorry foxy isn't really the right word. Very structured, striking appearance. I used to think capricorns were the scorpios. They have a very captivating look. They have the cheek bones. Sorry my usage of adjectives is not good. I'm kind of tired I believe.

Virgos do look like foxes. Michelle Williams definitely does.
 

love-thinking

Well-known member
Here is Che Guevara, Aries ascendant and Gemini Sun:
9954189._SX540_.jpg


His eyes are confident, and he doesn't look like he is deep and brooding. Martin Luther King has this calm,earthy and deep gaze.

Aries is not a deep and thinking sign, so they should look energetic and "happy" in some way.

Another picture of Che Guevara, extremely confident-looking man: http://www.history.com/s3static/vid...SFC_178889_SFM_000_2997_15_20150113_00_HD.jpg

No you're definitely right. I think his eyes resemble capricorn and maybe even taurus ascendent.
 
Top