Wake Up In Your Dream Body ♕ ᴏᴠᴇʀɴɪɢʜᴛ ᴛʀᴀɴꜱꜰᴏʀᴍᴀᴛɪᴏɴ ɪꜱ ᴘᴏꜱꜱɪʙʟᴇ.(ɴᴏ

Astrology Observations VII.

Krittika nakshatra is the most skeptical about spirituality and religion. Being the first sun ruled nakshatra Krittika is sharp and cutting with truth and anything of a lunar or devotional nature doesn’t innately attract them. They tend to accept their reality more than most.

On the other hand, Uttara Ashada is naturally very conscious about religion and spirituality and may have more inclination to practice the more physical acts of devotion or enlightenment such as yoga or meditation.

Dhanishta is truly their own brand of original, they have a funny and open way of expressing themselves that is truly captivating to others. They’re very honest about who they are and that’s what magnetizes others to them.

Dhanishta women have a very “succulent” and “rich” aura to them. It’s as if you want to take a bite out of their presence because it’s so warm and nourishing. Their internal softness and warmth bleeds through their external power and creates an intoxicating presence that can only be felt.

Mercury ruled women are rather mysterious and elusive. They’re extremely multi-faceted and internally rich they can be hard to pin down and get to know truly, they can put on many hats and are also very protective of their energy.

Shravana men are sensitive and artistically inclined particularly to music and singing.

Just a speculation: if, one of the things that sun represents is energy and vitality in astrology, can that mean that what ever house the sun is placed in, the themes related to that house energises you or brings you vitality? For example: Sun in the 2nd house might feel energised when they have a stable and secure flow of money, quality time with family, trying out new food and being clear on your values or priorities.

This part

Uttara Phalguni & Dhanishta women are so similar to me. Interesting because the Vasus (Dhanishta’s deities) stole Kamadhenu (Uttara Phalguni). By the way, Uttara Phalguni is typically associated with Nandi, but I saw the strong connection between the wish-fulfilling cow & the wish-fulfilling woman mentioned in Uttara Phalguni’s sutra. Then I noticed someone else saw the connection between Uttara Phalguni & Kamadhenu (shreemastrology on Twitter).

The same way Claire Nakti mentioned how there is always a Dhanishta woman for each generation who is a sex symbol (I really hope she doesn’t take that video down but I think it’s still up so go watch if you haven’t!!), I’ve noticed the same for Uttara Phalguni. One of the women she mentioned actually had an Uttara Phalguni placement as well (Sophia Loren)

There was Sophia Loren, Olivia Newton John, Britney Spears, Nicki Minaj, and now Doja Cat.

These women are naturally different in their own expression of this trope, but considering how Uttara Phalguni is the center stage & the objectified female form, it makes complete sense why these women rise to the spotlight continuously. They eventually become “cash cows” because sex sells, and Uttara Phalguni is the feminine expression of sexuality (hence its associated with the sex organs, lips, left hand, the blossoming of a flower. Lips & flowers are symbolic of the Yoni. It’s also why this nakshatra is the awakening of Shakti. It’s just that society has distorted and tainted how natural and beautiful the awakening of Shakti is.)

Aryaman also rules the traditions of a group of people. This might extend into the traditions of a society which produces (Uttara Phalguni is all about producing fruit + being wish-fulfilling) media that makes $. In other words: pop culture. This nakshatra is the idea of capitalism & industries within itself. And what runs industries at the end of the day? The idea that sex sells. The same way people exploit the female form is the same way humans exploit the Earth, as women are vessels of Mother Nature ♍️

Laura Mulvey coined the term “Male Gaze.” Not only did she have Ashlesha sun with potential Krittika moon, but Uttara Phalguni Venus (DK) conjunct Uttara Phalguni Rahu.

"proving" shifting through scientific evidence (& philosophic theory)

this post is heavily inspired by @voldyateme on tiktok. i saw her video and decided to do research on my own, and write a detailed post about this topic to make myself understand better. i also would like to mention that some of the claims irene made in her tiktok were wrong (and biased) i also wanted to clear some things up for myself.

fyi: long post ahead. this took me three days to understand and write. i might still be a bit unclear on my understanding of some aspects, but to avoid having to write a whole novel on the subject, i simplified my findings and shortened them by a lot.

-

john clauser is a physicist who won the nobel peace prize in 2022 for his work on quantum entanglement. his theory confirms that quantum particles can be entangled across vast distances, and that their behaviors are instantly connected, even if they're light years apart.

a very simplified example:

i: you create two entangled particles

ii: you send particle A to tokyo, and particle B to paris

iii: a person in tokyo measures particle A and sees it spinning up, then instantly, meaning instantly, faster than light, the person in paris will know particle B is spinning down

this is simply based on particle A or B's observation, w/o there having to be sent any message or signal between them. they behave as if they're one system - not two separate ones.

the moment you measure one particle, you're instantly aware of the other particle's state.

⭒ relating quantum entanglement to shifting:

okay so now we know that entangled particles act as of they're one system, even through long distances. so, if everything was once connected to the big bang, then on some level, everything may still be entangled. meaning you, your consciousness and other "versions" of yourself in other realities.

this could therefore suggest that we are already connected to all possible versions of ourselves. they exist within a quantum field of potential, and our awareness can shift between these versions by tuning into the version we desire - essentially by choosing a different frequency.

say you're listening to the radio. you know that you’re able to listen to any radio broadcast because there are thousands playing at the same exact time, but you choose which one to listen to, knowing you have the choice to change it to another.

it's the same exact with shifting. you know that there are endless versions of you in existence right this moment - you only have to choose to become aware of your desired self.

-

john wheeler, another physicist, proved that reality is directly linked to our consciousness and what we observe. it's been demonstrated that particles don't move until they're actually observed. so if we're not observing something, it doesn't have a definite state at all. this is called the "observer effect"

the effect has challenged and in some ways helped disprove einstein's theory of realism. einstein believed that that the physical world exists independently of whether we observe it or not.

example: according to einstein, if a tree falls in a forest and no one is there to observe it, the tree still falls. this is shown to be false on a quantum level. that said, we can't w/ certainty say that the tree does (or doesn’t) exist if no one is perceiving it (confusing, trust me, i know)

wheeler also proved that particles will change their makeup based on our choices and observation. simplified, this means that reality doesn't fully decide its state until it's observed. it can have different outcomes, and our choices affect the past behavior of particles.

⭒ relating the observer effect to shifting:

we know that quantum particles don't take on a definite form or "reality" until they're observed. this implies that our observation plays a direct role in shaping reality - not just by watching, but also deciding. this implies that reality isn't fixed, but fluid, shaped by our decisions, thoughts and observations and means we can "choose" our reality.

quantum physics shows that reality isn't fixed until observed, observation and consciousness do play a key role and that multiple outcomes are possible. so our consciousness focus can be said to be the mechanism that "shifts" us into a desired timeline or reality.

-

way before quantum physics existed, george berkley, a philosopher in the 1700s argued the idea "to be is to be perceived", which is eerily similar to what scientists are exploring today.

he believed that physical objects don't exist independently of our own perception. so if no one is for example perceiving a tree, then it doesn't exist.

berkeley said that there is no such thing as matter existing on its own w/o a mind to perceive it. BUT! there's a twist. you see, berkley also argued the existence of God being necessary to explain how the world works within his theory of perception and idealism.

okay so, to simplify because it can be really confusing:

i: physical things only exist if they're being perceived.

ii: when humans aren't perceiving things, God is.

iii: the reason why the world keeps existing even when we're not looking is because God is always "watching".

this raises the question: if we're not perceiving something, and the only reason it exists because God is, then how do we know it actually exists when we're not perceiving it?

berkeley responded:

"we know it exists because we can come back and perceive it again, and it behaves consistently"

if you look at a tree, walk away, come back. it's still there. berkeley argued that you assume the tree existed the whole time because when you go back, the tree would still be there, at the exact same spot.

this consistency would therefore be explained by God's continuous perception of it. so even though you didn't perceive it the whole time, the fact that reality is orderly and consistent is reliable "proof" that something (God) kept it there.

critics have argued back that assuming God is perceiving all the time isn't proof that He actually is, so how would we know that?

the answer is: w/o God, things would just pop in and out of existence every time we blink and that doesn't happen. so God is used to explain why the world is consistent and stable even when we're not watching.

you can't personally perceive something that you're not perceiving, but you trust that it's still there when you go back there, because of God.

berkeley's theory is still relevant today because the things he imagined in the 1700s do line up w/ scientific discoveries today and i resonate w/ his theory, so i just had to include it even though God’s existence isn’t proven. it’s fascinating, really.

⭒ relating george’s idealism to reality shifting:

if. like berkeley said, things only exist when they're being perceived, and if reality stays consistent because someone is always perceiving it, then that means perception isn't just passive, it's creative and shapes what exists.

this ties back to shifting beacuse it suggests that your desired reality doesn't need to "appear" in front of you for it to be real - it only needs to be perceived. if you consciously focus on your dr, perceiving it in your mind as real, then by berkeley's logic, it is real, maybe not in the physical sense just yet, but within the field of awareness that gives rise to reality in the first place.

so basically: if reality is perception based, and you're perceiving your dr, then you're giving form to something that exists because you're actively perceiving it, and you are capable of being in that place.

what the fuck

girl BREAK FREE FROM YOUR HUSBAND ENTIRELY

DIVORCE

Mercury Nakshatras Style

In this post, I’ll be observing some consistent fashion styles in Mercury Nakshatras that I’ve noticed and explaining the meaning behind the influence. You can find my analysis on Saturn Nakshatra style [here].

Stella Lucia - Ashlesha ☉

Abbey Lee - Jyestha ☽ ☿ FKA Twigs- Jyestha ☽ ↑

Mercury nakshatra can lean towards a very bohemian-influenced style with flowy silhouettes, layered fabrics—especially patterns—intricate embroidery, and an abundance of accessories like sunglasses, beaded jewelry, scarves, and crystals. Much like Saturn-ruled Nakshatras, there is a deep love for textured materials and chokers. The boho style was most popular during the mid-60s to 70s, often represented by icons like Anita Pallenberg (Revati ☉, Jyestha ☽), who embodied its free-spirited essence.

FKA Twigs - Jyestha ☽ ↑

Anita Pallenberg - Revati ☉ Jyestha ☽ ☿

Abbey Lee - Jyestha ☽

At its core, boho fashion represents artistic, intellectual, and creative freedom—a more down-to-earth connection, as if the clothing were effortlessly gathered from different people’s closets. This aligns well with Mercury Nakshatras, as Mercury governs communication, intellect, and how we process and express ideas. With its connection to water sign rulership, there’s a sentimental depth to their fashion—every piece carries purpose or meaning.

Georgia May Jagger - revati ☽

Teyanna Taylor - Jyestha ☉ ☿

Frances Bean Cobain - revati ☽

Mercury Nakshatras tend to gravitate toward an indie sleaze style, often incorporating patterned tights, combat or ankle boots paired with feminine, petite dresses, oversized ripped sweaters, or band tees—all with a deliberately messy, “unkempt” look. Footwear plays a significant role, especially for Revati natives, as Pisces rules the 12th house, which governs the feet. Meanwhile, Jyestha’s love for combat boots comes from Scorpio’s co-ruler, Mars, which governs war attire and tough, utilitarian aesthetics. Mercury Nakshatras often accessorize with sunglasses and even cigarettes, embodying a hedonistic, unpolished, and authentic style. Mercury itself carries a playful, indulgent nature, making these Nakshatras naturally drawn to a reckless, party-fueled aesthetic—think smudged makeup after a long night out. Much like their Gandanta Nakshatra counterparts (Ketu Nakshatras), they approach both fashion and life with an unfiltered, raw sense of authenticity.

Kim Daul - Revati ☽

Stella Lucia - Ashlesha ☉

Alexa Demie - Jyestha ☉ Ashlesha ↑ ☿

Sinead O’Connor - Jyestha ☉

I’ve noticed that Jyestha natives often gravitate toward a biker/punk aesthetic, favoring all-black clothing, tank tops, and fitted pants paired with leather jackets. mercury is seen as neutral gendered planet meaning a lot of mercury influence natives can take on a very androgynous and genderfluid look. A perfect example is Vivienne Westwood (Revati ☉, Jyestha ↑), whose revolutionary designs helped define the punk movement as well as breaking boundaries in gendered styling.

Vivienne Westwood - Revati ☉ Jyestha ↑

Punk fashion, at its core, represents rebellion, anti-establishment ideals, and a DIY ethos—rejecting mainstream norms in favor of individuality and raw self-expression. It emerged in the 1970s as a reaction to societal constraints, blending elements of distressed clothing, leather, spikes, and provocative statements to challenge authority.

1. Vivienne Westwood “Horned Tiara” the Mercury symbol itself has horns “☿”

2. Stella Lucia - Ashlesha ☉ modeling for Vivienne Westwood

This aligns deeply with Mercury Nakshatras, as Mercury governs intellect, communication, and subversive thinking. Those influenced by Mercury, especially Jyestha and Revati, often use fashion as a form of protest and self-expression. Their style is bold, strategic, and deliberately unfiltered, reflecting both Mercury’s quick-witted nature and Jyestha’s intense, transformative energy. The punk aesthetic, much like these Nakshatras, thrives on pushing boundaries, questioning norms, and embracing an unapologetic, rebellious identity.

maybe I’d be more open to religion if there was a religion that didn’t present women as an extension of men and males as the default

It's funny how women are called misandrists for refusing to interact with men in their personal lives, creativity (books, music, art, and so on) and in politics, while the vast majority of men have always consumed exclusively male content. absolutely consciously.

they avoid friendships with women. they avoid women's books. they avoid films directed by women. they avoid women in gaming communities. they avoid women everywhere, hiding behind the fact that "it's not masculine!", but continue to be considered just... ordinary people? not anti-feminists, not misogynists, but ordinary people. this is considered the norm.

If for a man avoiding women is a choice, then for women it is always an encroachment on male dominance.

because how dare you not listen to men's music? how dare you intentionally reduce your consumption of content with male characters or written by men? how dare you watch exclusively female videos and trust exclusively female words? there's definitely something wrong with your head! you stupid misandrist and man-hater! go get treated!