What is a rising sign?

Your rising sign (or Ascendant) is the zodiac sign that was rising over the eastern horizon at the exact moment and place you were born. It governs first impressions, your outward style, and how you instinctively approach the world.

Why do I need my birth time for my rising sign?

The rising sign changes roughly every two hours as the Earth turns, so even a birth an hour apart can have a different Ascendant. That's why an accurate birth time matters for the rising sign and the houses.

Is your rising sign how people see you?

Largely, yes. The rising sign is often described as the 'first impression' or the lens you meet the world through — the vibe people pick up before they know you well.

The Jonas Method

In the 1950s a Slovak psychiatrist claimed astrology could tell a woman when she was fertile — accurately enough to be used as contraception. It is one of the most consequential claims anyone has made for astrology, and it is worth knowing exactly what it was, and what came of it.

☾ See your own Jonas returns

The dates your Sun–Moon angle comes back round. Free, runs in your browser.

What Eugen Jonas proposed

Eugen Jonas was a psychiatrist working in Czechoslovakia in the late 1950s. Abortion had recently been legalised there, and he was looking for a method of family planning that needed no drugs and no surgery. What he arrived at came from astrology.

His central claim was this: alongside the ovulation cycle that medicine already knew about, a woman has a second fertile window each month, and it falls when the Sun and the Moon return to the exact angle they held at the moment of her own birth. Because the Moon returns to a given phase roughly every 29.5 days, that angle recurs about once a month — close to, but not the same as, her ovulation.

He made two further claims on top of it. That the sign the Moon occupied at conception determined the sex of the child — masculine signs a boy, feminine signs a girl. And that the planetary configurations at conception governed whether a pregnancy would hold and whether the child would be born healthy.

Jonas put the reliability of the contraceptive use at 98–99%, and the sex-selection figure at around 97–98%. For a few years in the 1960s he ran a research centre in Nitra with state funding, and other physicians worked on it with him.

What the evidence actually shows

This is the part that matters, and it needs saying carefully, because it is easy to overstate in either direction.

Jonas’s own figures were never published in a peer-reviewed journal. He said he had extensive proof; it did not appear anywhere it could be examined by people who were not already convinced. His centre was closed at the end of the 1960s, and the work afterwards was carried on commercially rather than clinically.

His specific claim has never been independently replicated. Not "tested and disproved" — something weaker and, in a way, worse: nobody outside his circle has produced a result supporting it, and it has not been taken up in reproductive medicine anywhere.

The nearest thing to a direct test is the broader question of whether the lunar cycle influences human birth at all, and that has been examined properly with large samples:

Benski and Gerin (1991) looked at the birthdays of 4,256 babies born at a French clinic and found them evenly distributed across the synodic lunar cycle.
Periti and Biagiotti (1994) examined 7,842 spontaneous deliveries over five years at a clinic in Florence and found no relationship between the phase of the Moon and the number of births.

Both of those test whether the Moon’s phase affects when babies are born, which is related to Jonas’s claim without being identical to it — he was talking about conception, not delivery. We would rather point that out than let two good studies be used to settle a question they did not quite ask. What they do establish is that the most obvious lunar effect on human reproduction, the one that would have to exist for the rest of the picture to hold together, is not there in samples of thousands.

Why Umbriel explains this instead of calculating it

The Sun–Moon angle at your birth is a real quantity, and this app already knows it — it is your natal moon phase. Working out when that angle recurs would take a few lines of code, and we have written far harder things than that.

We have chosen not to, and the reason is simple. Everything else in Umbriel is offered for reflection: if a reading is wrong, you have read something that did not fit and you move on. This would be different in kind. A calculator that prints "you are fertile on these dates" is a thing people act on, and a wrong answer means an unintended pregnancy, or a year of trying to conceive on a schedule built from nothing. That is not a risk we are entitled to hand anybody, however many warnings we wrapped around it.

So the page you are reading is the whole of it. We think the history is genuinely worth knowing — a doctor with a research budget and a state behind him tried to put astrology to a hard, testable use, and it did not survive contact with the evidence. That story is more useful than the calculator would have been.

If you came here looking for help

If you are trying to conceive, or trying not to, the people who can actually help are your doctor, a midwife, or a family-planning or sexual-health service. If you want a method you track yourself, ask them about fertility awareness — the symptothermal method and its relatives are taught properly, have real evidence behind them, and are nothing to do with astrology.

Nothing on this page is medical advice, and Umbriel is not a medical service.

← All guides