In India, astrological matchmaking is invariably the very first filter applied in the selection process of arranged marriages. Close to 90 percent of marriages in India are arranged, so clearly astrology is very popular. This popularity warrants scientific and transparent testing of Indian astrology, but, perhaps surprisingly, to date no astrologers have aggressively sought to have such testing done.
The double-blind experiment conducted by the noted astrophysicist and science communicator Jayant Narlikar should be viewed as a pioneering effort to test astrology in India. Narlikar, recipient of the Padm Vibhushan, India’s second highest civilian award, published the results of the test widely, including in an article in Skeptical Inquirer (Narlikar 2013). His research generated a lot of debate because it revealed that none of the astrologers could perform better than chance, 50 percent. However, as in many double-blind experiments, particularly when the outcome is negative, astrology’s supporters tried to create ambiguity by questioning whether the results were due to the limitations of astrology or the astrologers themselves. Against this backdrop, we present the results of new empirical tests of a few fundamental principles of Indian astrology, leveraging the same dataset that was used in Narlikar’s double-blind test. Interestingly enough, our results showed why Indian astrology failed the double-blind test. It is little wonder that other versions of astrology are found to fail on the same grounds.
The Previous Experiment
Narlikar et al. conducted their double-blind test in Pune, India, in 2008 (Narlikar et al. 2009; Narlikar 2013). In this test, the variable being tested for was clear: namely, whether a person is intellectually and developmentally disabled or intelligent. As part of the test, a sample of 200 birth charts was used, 100 of each of the two classes. From this pool of birth charts, astrologers in the state of Maharashtra, India, were given a random mix of forty astrological birth charts; the identity and details of each person was hidden. Then the astrologers were asked to identify—purely through astrological means—which birth charts belonged to intellectually and developmentally disabled persons and which belonged to intelligent persons. If astrology could tell a person’s intelligence or a major attribute such as a disability from a birth chart, it would be expected that astrologers would correctly classify at least twenty-eight birth charts, 70 percent of the cases given to them. The researchers made an effort to maximize participation by appealing to astrologers and their associations through newspapers and press conferences. In total, twenty-seven astrologers participated in this test, but none could correctly classify with an accuracy of 70 percent or better as required by the test. Overall, average success was 17.25 charts (43.13 percent), even less than chance. The success rate of the single astrologer association that participated, which was given all 200 cases to analyze, was also not up to the mark. They could only hit 102 cases correctly, well below the stipulated minimum of 117 required to make a case for astrology. Thus, Narlikar et al. showed that the predictions given by the astrologers fared no better than pure chance—like tossing a coin.
The New Experiment
Despite several failures in the double-blind test globally, proponents still like to paint astrology as a science. If it is a science, it should be proven through a universal framework of empirical testing. However, no such attempt has been reported to date on Indian astrology (often referred to as Vedic astrology)—nor are there plans by any institutions, including astrologers’ associations, to investigate it in detail. Empirical testing of astrology was therefore taken up in our new study by forming two groups. Group A consisted of birth charts of intelligent persons, and Group B consisted of those of intellectually and developmentally disabled persons. The experiment focused on the same criteria that were tested in the previous experiment, namely whether astrology can predict intelligence. Though the core data remained the same, we expanded the base of data to 338 cases in each group to increase the confidence level of the results.
Our design approach for this test was to apply astrological principles, measure the number of cases that comply with the given principle, and compare both groups through statistical methods to see if there was any significant difference. Indian astrology assumes that each planet, house, and lord of the house (hereafter collectively referred to as “entities”) in the birth chart is significant for particular life traits (Raman 1996; Rao 2004, 79; Rath 2012, 23). For example, Mercury, fifth house, and lord of the fifth house are said to be significant for the subject’s intelligence; Venus, seventh house, and lord of seventh house supposedly are significant for marriage; and so on. One astrology principle states that when the planet is in conjugation with malefic planets, such as Saturn or Mars, its effect is adverse or harmful (Agarwal 2019, 125; Raman 1996; Rao 2004, 100). The counterpart of this principle affirms that if the planet is in conjugation with auspicious planets, such as Jupiter or Venus, then the effect is beneficial. We refer to these two statements as negative and positive principles, respectively. They are considered principles because they are universally applicable to all the planets and used for predicting their respective “significant” effects.
If we apply these principles to a specific entity only, these principles become “rules.” For instance, Mercury signifies intelligence, so this rule will be used to predict intelligence either negatively or positively. Similarly, if we apply the same principles to Venus, they will become rules used to predict success in marriage. Similar rules can be made for all the planets. The principles are more generic in nature compared to the rules and are considered foundational to astrology. They are almost universally agreed upon. We focused on them to test astrology because, basically, astrology cannot be practiced without applying them. These principles are primarily based on the assumption that malefic astrological configurations associated with the given entity (planet, house, or lord of house) decrease their ability to have beneficial effects and hence result in undesired characteristics for the life traits for which they are responsible (Agarwal 2019; Rao 2004; Rath 2012). Without contesting the logic of the principles, we decided to test them empirically.
In astrology, there is no universally agreed-upon published list of principles that one can refer to for predicting a given trait. With this in mind, we went through several books and articles (Agarwal 2019; Chatterjee 2017; Krishna 2013; Raman 1996; Rao 2004; Rath 2012), deliberated with some of the astrologers, and decided to test a few of the principles that are given as fundamental principles in the material studied. These principles act as the core framework of Indian astrology. The next step was to decide on applying them to the entities deemed significant for intelligence. When we looked at the diversity of rules being discussed by astrologers in various books and articles (Chauhan 2014; Balajee 2019; Krishna 2013; Rao 2004; Rath 2012) and forums, we came across several planets and houses deemed significant for predicting intelligence. For example, conventionally, Mercury and the Moon are considered significant for predicting intelligence; however, some astrologers believe Uranus and Jupiter have qualities similar to Mercury and are equally responsible for influencing intelligence (Chauhan 2014). When it comes to houses, besides the conventional first house, the fifth and third houses are also claimed to be significant for intelligence. We decided to test the principles applicable to planets for all the planets and principles applicable to houses for all twelve houses. This way, regardless of which of them is significant for intelligence, we would see the difference in at least one of them.
The Experimental Set Up
We developed a computer-based, three-part program to perform the testing.
1) The software for casting the birth charts made use of commercially available APIs (application programming interfaces). Details such as planetary positions, dignities, retrogrades, house numbers, etc., were written in the database using the Lahiri ayanamsa system (Rao 2004, 18).
2) The analyzer engine applied various rules, measured which ones comply, and created a database of the number of cases that complied with the given rule in both groups. Python-based automation developed in this module enabled the software to cast and process hundreds of birth charts in a single operation.
3) The statistical testing module worked on the database created by the analyzer engine. It filtered the data to create two groups and performed comparisons through the Chi-square statistical test. It was run on the input variable “number of cases that complied with the given rule” for all entities. Here the null hypothesis was defined as “the number of cases complying with the rule of an entity under test in both groups is equal.” In other words, this hypothesis is basically saying that there is no difference in compliance of rule in both groups, and hence the particular rule of astrology under test is not valid. The alternative hypothesis is that both groups are not equal in numbers of cases, which would support the validity of the rule. We were willing to allow that if there were even a 10 percent difference between the two groups (a hypothetical difference criteria of 10 percent), then the astrological principles we tested are true and offer valid predictions on critical life matters. Because this difference between the two groups would be expected to be much higher—50 percent at least—were astrology true, this 10 percent figure creates a very liberal and easy test for astrological principles to pass. At the same time, testing a null hypothesis with 10 percent hypothetical difference criteria is the most stringent test for us to refute those principles. However, we decided to run the test this way to avoid any ambiguity and give astrological principles the best chance at being proven.
Data
The statistical test calculator (https://surveysystem.com/sscalc.htm) stipulates that we need to have a minimum sample size of 661 (both groups together) to achieve a confidence level of 99 percent with a confidence interval of 5 percent to test the difference in two groups. To ensure we met this criterion, we fed birth details of 338 cases each of intelligent and intellectually and developmentally disabled persons to our three-part program.
The birth details involved in this experiment were collected by a team of volunteers who reached out to various schools in the state of Maharashtra, India, and made a special appeal to parents. In our appeal, we emphasized the objective of the experiment and the need of being accurate in terms of birth date, time, etc. We obtained birth details through a consent form filled out and signed by parents. For cases in Group B, the team approached some special schools being run for intellectually and developmentally disabled students in different parts of the State of Maharashtra, India, and approached parents through the teachers. For intelligent students (Group A), we requested birth details of only those students who were certified as intelligent by their teachers based on their school records. We received 116 names for Group A through these initiatives. This was not a sufficient number, so we added a few cases that we personally collected. The criteria for selection of these additional cases were (a) higher educational qualifications, such as doctorate, postgraduate, MBBS (bachelor of medicine, bachelor of surgery), or certified chartered accountant; (b) age in the range of thirty to forty-two, which is the same as that of Group B; (c) sufficient confidence in the accuracy of data; and (4) no history of mental retardation or other mental disorder.
Statistical Analysis
Principles Applicable for Planets
The results of the six fundamental principles we tested for various planets are given in Table 1. For this article, let us call them “negative principles” because they are considered to predict malefic or negative effects in life. A description of the principle we tested and the analysis of results are given below.
Rule P1—Planet in the Sixth, Eighth, or Twelfth House: This principle is one of the primary negative principles considered for predicting any adverse effect. For instance, to predict an intellectually and developmentally disabled person, this rule will be checked for planets considered “significant” for predicting intelligence. Mathematically, this is the probability that a planet is in the zodiac sign of x+5, x+7, or x+11 when x is the zodiac sign number of ascendant. Regardless of which planet is significant for intelligence, we find that none of the planets have a significantly higher probability of getting placed in these zodiac signs when the person belongs to the intellectually and developmentally disabled group. The chi-square test confirms further that the null hypothesis cannot be rejected based on p values for any of the planets; hence, this principle was not found to be valid.
Rule P2—Planet in Conjugation, Square, or Opposite to Saturn, Mars, Rahu, Ketu, or Uranus: This principle deals with the probability of a planet having a difference of 0, 90, or 180 degrees (allowing deviation of ±4 degrees) with one of the five malefic planets, namely Saturn, Mars, Rahu, Ketu, or Uranus. (Astronomically, Rahu and Ketu denote the points of intersection of the paths of the Sun and the Moon as they move on the celestial sphere. Vedic astrology treats these two points as planets and use them for predictions.) Indian astrology assumes that such configuration results in malefic effects related to the significance of the planet. Again, we find that none of the planets or ascendant have a significantly higher percentage of such configurations in Group B versus Group A despite having opposite life patterns. The principle was therefore disproved.
Rule P3—Planet in Debilitated or Enemy Sign: This principle anticipates a planet of related significance to be in particular zodiac signs (considered as debilitated or enemy signs) for people when the corresponding life effect is undesired. We find from the chi-square test that the probabilities of such configurations are similar in both the groups for all the planets; hence, the principle is not valid.
Rule P4—Planet in Debilitated or Enemy Sign and in Conjugation, Square, or Opposite to Saturn, Mars, Rahu, Ketu, or Uranus: This principle is nothing but simultaneous compliance with the previous two principles and is considered to produce a more malefic effect. Because the probability of complying with both conditions simultaneously is much less likely for any planet, the number of cases that comply with this principle comes down in both groups. When compared with each other, however, they are not significantly different between the two groups. Therefore, the principles neither individually nor in combination act as a differentiator.
Rule P5—Planet in Conjugation with the Lord of the Sixth, Eighth, or Twelfth House: This principle is about the difference in degrees between planets under test and planets that act as lords of the sixth, eighth, or twelfth house in the birth chart. If the difference is ±4 degrees, then the rule is considered as complied with. If this principle is valid, it should have been reflected in the results for at least one planet, but we did not find this.
Rule P6—Planet in Malefic Nakshatra, Namely Krittika, Ashelsha, or Mul: In this principle, we are again checking the probability of degrees of the planet being in a range that correlates to above nakshatras (Rao 2004). The Moon and Mercury in these nakshatras are considered especially malefic from the fortune and intelligence perspective, respectively. As can be seen from the results, however, there is no significant difference in the number of cases in both groups, not only for these two planets but for all of the others; hence, the rule is proven invalid. Quite often astrologers suggest remedies for people because the Moon appears in these nakshatras. This is plainly unjustified, because the principle itself is invalid.
These results pose many questions about the predictions made using these principles in general, because these principles act as the basic premise of astrology. Considering the importance of Mercury, the Moon, and Jupiter in astrological predictions—especially for intelligence (Raman 1996; Rao 2004; Rath 2012)—the above results show that their significance to intelligence is not proven.
We must add that besides testing these principles for all planets, we also have tested them in a similar manner for the planets said to act as lords of individual houses. Indian astrology asserts that like every planet, the lords of the houses also contribute to predictions. The lord of the house is nothing but a ruler planet of the zodiac sign of the house (Raman 1996; Rao 2004). Depending on the ascending sign, the zodiac signs of the houses are different. In our experiment, when two groups were compared, we did not find any difference in compliance with the rules by the lords of the houses. As an example, astrology expects that the lord of the first house complies with the above negative rules with more probability in Group B than Group A. Empirically, though, this has proven true for neither the lord of the first house nor for the lords of other houses. We are not giving the details here to avoid repetition, but that certainly poses questions around the fundamental rules for the lords of houses.
Principles Applicable for Houses
In Indian astrology, the houses, like the planets, are considered to affect people’s lives, according to the significance attached to them (Rao 2004; Rath 2012). Regardless of which house has significance for intelligence, we tested the two most fundamental rules for all twelve houses to see if they showed up in our experiment for at least one house. Astrologists assume both principles give malefic, or undesired, effects. If this hypothesis is indeed valid, we expected them to affect more cases in Group B for at least one of the twelve houses. The principles and their results are presented below and in the Table 2.
Rule H1—Saturn and Mars Are Placed in the House, in the Opposite House, Have Third/Tenth Aspect of Saturn, or Fourth/Eighth Aspect of Mars: This principle anticipates a certain placement of Saturn and Mars with respect to the house under test with more probability in the case of Group B. As can be seen from the chi-square test, none of these twelve houses in Group B show any more chance of such configurations as compared to Group A. We therefore do not find merit in this principle.
Rule H2—Lord of the Sixth, Eighth, or Twelfth House Placed in the House: The consideration here from astrologists’ point of view is that the planets that act as lords of the sixth, eighth, and twelfth house play an evil role in the birth chart. When they get placed in the house, they contribute to the destruction of the effect associated with the house. The results show that these planets do not get placed in any particular house with a higher probability in birth charts of Group B as versus Group A. The principle around their placements is therefore not found to be valid.
Just as we have seen principles for malefic effects that we have referred to as negative principles, there are principles for benefic (beneficial) effects too. In this article, we are referring to them as positive principles. These positive principles are generally defined in exactly the opposite manner as the negative principles from astrologists’ perspective. For example, the positive principle opposite to those above will predict greater intelligence (beneficial effect) if the planet is in exalted or friendly signs rather than debilitated and enemy signs. For the sake of completeness, we tested positive principles opposite to the rules above and did not find any significantly higher compliance of these positive principles in Group A than Group B.
To take our investigation further, we also computed the total number of negative rules complied with by each planet for all the birth charts and took the average for Group A and Group B. From the astrologists’ point of view, one would obviously expect a greater number of negative rules being complied with in Group B on average. Most astrologers, including those who participated in the double-blind tests, use this approach to predict undesired or negative effects. While analyzing the birth chart, they count the number of negative rules that are complied with by significant entities and compare that with the threshold value that is established based on their past experiences. When tested for each planet through two sample T tests of significance (Table 3), however, we did not find any significant difference in the average number of rules complied with in Group B as opposed to Group A.
It is important to understand, therefore, that the prediction of adverse effects based on greater compliance with negative rules is erroneous. This is because empirically, both groups have the same compliance on average, even though the individual values (for given birth charts) do vary around the mean value within the range of standard deviation for both groups. We can take the example where the number of negative rules complied with by Mercury is three in a given birth chart. Assuming that this predicts adverse effects related to the significance of Mercury because it exceeds 1.75 (the Group B mean) is incorrect. This is because the number of rules complied with varies from zero to five for both groups. If we account for the number of cases where compliance is greater than three in both groups, they will not be significantly different. Hence, it is incorrect to predict based on total number of negative rules complied with. Along similar lines, we calculated the total number of positive rules complied with by the planets and found that their averages were also not significantly different among the two groups. Thus, the total number of positive rules complied with can also not be the criterion for predicting positive effects.
Despite this extensive testing, there will always be arguments about which additional rules should have been tested. While more principles can always be tested, there should be a logical explanation for why none of the sixteen principles we tested for the thirty-four entities in our comprehensive test showed any difference; they would be expected to be substantially different from an astrological perspective. Also, we cannot ignore the fact that what we have tested and found invalid is the inherent and core part of Indian astrology. It is being used in day-to-day practice by astrologers. One can only imagine the risk to society by allowing decisions to be made based on astrology.
These results explain why in double-blind tests of astrology in general—and in the 2008 test by Narlikar et al. in particular—none of the astrologers could hit a better success rate than 50 percent. In our view, though astrologers have their own sets of rules used for predictions, the rules are mostly based on the fundamental principles tested above. These principles do not act as a differentiator themselves, nor do they produce a differential negativity when they are summed up together. Hence, no one could achieve a success rate better than random chance. It is thus the limitation of astrology, and not of the astrologers, that astrology failed.
Acknowledgment
We thank Dr. Jayant Narlikar for the discussions and guidance he provided for this research. His input has added a great value to the paper. We are also grateful to him for having been the architect of the double-blind experiment carried out in 2008 that forms the basis of our test. The late Dr. Narendra Dabholkar and the late Dr. Sudhakar Kunte were also part of this experiment, and we express our sincere gratitude for their contributions. We are grateful to volunteers of Andha Shradha Nirmulan Samiti (ANS), who collected the birth details of several hundred students over a period of a few months. This was a huge effort and forms a vital component of our work. We also sincerely thank the parents and teachers of the mentally challenged students in this study for their understanding and support.
References
Agarwal, G.S. 2019. Practical Vedic Astrology. New Delhi, India: Sagar Publication.
Balaji Deekshitulu, P.V. 2019. Astrology and mental health. International Journal of Philosophical Research 1(1).
Chatterjee, S.S. 2017. Advanced Medical Astrology. New Delhi, India: Rave Publication.
Chauhan, Ashish. 2014. Predicting psychological disorders by astrology. Journal of Psychotherapy and Psychological Disorders 2(1).
Krishna, Murthy Kavirayani. 2013. Astrology and mental illness. AP Journal of Psychological Medicine 14(2): 95–102.
Narlikar, Jayant V. 2013. An Indian test of Indian astrology. Skeptical Inquirer 37(3) (March/April): 45–49.
Narlikar, J.V., S. Kunte, N. Dabholkar, et al. 2009. A statistical test of astrology. Current Science 96: 641–643.
Raman, B.V. 1996. Astrology for Beginners. New Delhi, India: UBS Publishers Distributors Ltd.
Rao, Narasihma P.V.R. 2004. Vedic Astrology: An Integrated Approach. New Delhi, India: Sagar Publications. Available online at https://www.vedicastrologer.org/articles/astro_books.htm.
Rath, Sanjay. 2012. Crux of Vedic Astrology. New Delhi, India: Sagar Publications.