Transcript: Arcanum Podcast / Christopher Warnock interview

This is a transcript I made of Ike Baker of The Arcanvm Podcast interviewing Christopher Warnock, a renown astrologer. The original video was published on Feb 25, 2024 on YouTube. Some automation was used in making this transcription.

---

Ike Baker

My conversation today is with author, astrologer, practitioner, and instructor Christopher Warnock, who specializes in traditional Renaissance astrology and astrological magic. Christopher's work over the past two and a half decades—including astrological treatises, instructional manuals, histories, translations, and more—has been massively influential to the occult, magical, and astrological communities. Among the field's heavyweights, Chris is indispensable and will likely rank among the annals of the great astrologers and magicians of the postmodern age.

Ike Baker

Yet, his approach to these subjects challenges many current paradigms. We sat down to talk about the postmodern worldview versus the traditional medieval and Renaissance magical worldviews, serious astrological practice, and much more. Throughout a brilliant and, at times, challenging conversation, Chris proved to be part scholar, part poet, and part community elder. His shining insights serve as a guiding star, pointing to an astrological and magical true North. I'm Ike Baker, and this is The Arcanum Podcast.

---

Christopher Warnock

I grew up in a very middle-class suburban background. I would describe it as classic Mid-America. I considered myself agnostic. My parents went to church, but when I asked them why, they said it was to be part of the community. When I asked if they talked to God, they thought the idea was insane. So, I came from an atheistic, materialistic background. I attended college first in the U.S. and then spent three years in Scotland at the University of St. Andrews, where I graduated. Afterward, I went to law school at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. The expectation was to work at a big law firm in New York or Washington, D.C., so I ended up in D.C.

Christopher Warnock

Then, I spontaneously became a spiritual seeker. That stage is like standing at an incredible buffet of spiritual and esoteric choices. I started reading books and exploring from the armchair—just sampling what was available. As part of that process, I stumbled across modern astrology. I read authors like Liz Greene and Dane Rudhyar, and while their work was interesting, it felt like a fog. The deeper I delved, the less clarity I found. Then I discovered medieval and Renaissance astrology, particularly horary astrology, and it resonated deeply. I began studying with Carol Wiggers and then Lee Lehman, who still teaches various techniques of medieval and Renaissance astrology, including electional astrology. Electional astrology, which helps you choose auspicious times for actions, led me to astrological magic since you need elections for magical work. Astrology, in this context, became a practical spiritual application, intertwining with my broader spiritual seeking. During this time, I was also initiated as a dervish in a Shia Sufi tariqa. That was my first deep spiritual immersion. This process of spiritual exploration ran parallel to my astrological studies.

What some people might consider purely spiritual, like Sufism or later my interest in Buddhism, became intertwined with the practical applications of astrology and astrological magic. Astrology, as I see it, has two sides. You can passively predict and observe cycles, or you can use astrological magic to take action. While I’m skeptical of anyone claiming to know exactly how magic works, its effects are observable and significant. In summary, that's how I became interested in medieval and Renaissance astrology. I also want to emphasize that there isn’t just one "astrology," any more than you can generalize all Middle Easterners as the same. Saying "astrology" often refers to modern astrology, which is just one school. Medieval and Renaissance astrology, by contrast, is distinct in its worldview, approach, and techniques, especially regarding causality.

Ike Baker

Well, that was kind of my next question. Within what you do—medieval Renaissance astrology—how important is it to understand the Renaissance or medieval worldview to practice astrological magic of your tradition or interpretations?

Christopher Warnock

I would say it's impossible to effectively practice any kind of magical astrology if you're coming from a modern worldview, especially an atheistic, materialistic one. If we pull back a bit, what do I mean by worldview? A worldview is essentially your conscious view of reality, your conscious philosophy, and your unconscious assumptions about the nature of reality. This concept isn't apparent to most people. For me, it was a huge struggle to even realize I had a worldview. Reality is reality, right? If someone doesn't share your reality, they're just insane—that's how most people think. It's not seen as a matter of choice or perspective; it's assumed there's one reality, and we know what it is. If someone disagrees, they belong in an asylum. Modern philosophy professors, for instance, might play with these ideas conceptually, but the underlying assumption remains: reality is only matter and energy. There's no spirituality, no God—that's all dismissed as nonsense. Still, they might entertain these concepts as intellectual exercises. The modern worldview boils down to this: nothing exists except matter and energy. E = mc² shows they're the same thing. If you talk about something spiritual, it's interpreted as psychological. Psychology is seen as brain function, which reduces to electrochemical impulses, then atoms, then subatomic particles randomly colliding. That's reality.

God? Sure, you can believe in God, but it's seen as a weekend hobby for the religious—an acceptable form of craziness. Otherwise, scientists determine reality, and atheistic materialism is the dominant framework. That's the ocean we swim in. Even in New Age circles, this worldview is pervasive. People unconsciously adhere to it while practicing astrology and magic. For instance, some genuinely believe astrology and magic are about magnetism, sunspots, quantum mechanics, or string theory. They reduce it to undetectable electromagnetic energy or something similar.

Take astrology: imagine Saturn in the seventh house. People might say Saturn is "beaming energy" at you, disrupting your relationships. To fix it, they suggest shielding yourself from Saturn's energy, treating it like a straightforward cause-and-effect process. Even when people claim they don’t hold this view, they often do unconsciously. That’s the mind game: so much of this is ingrained and unconscious. When I started practicing horary astrology, it challenged these assumptions. For example, with horary, someone asks a serious question, and I cast a chart based on the astrologer's location—not the querent's. From that chart, I can provide a remarkably accurate answer. How does that fit with an energy-based model? It doesn't. I did about 400 horary charts, and they worked. That started to break down my atheistic materialism. For me, astrology wasn’t just about prediction; it exploded my materialistic worldview.

My wife, like many people, is a natural animist. To her, everything is alive. That’s where I’ve arrived too. For instance, I studied Japanese traditions like Shinto, which align with this perspective. A rock, a tree—everything has life. Just today, I talked to a cricket while out walking. Sure, it sounds like an eccentric old man rambling to a cricket, but that’s my reality. I can also explain it philosophically, but this animistic view feels natural to many people. What’s tragic today is that atheistic materialism often leads to nihilism. If nothing exists but matter and energy, then everything is random and meaningless. The idea that you can "create your own meaning" is hollow. If nothing is inherently meaningful, you can’t just invent meaning. That’s a weak answer.

I see this reflected in societal issues like the opioid epidemic. People blame economic disparity, but I think the despair comes from a lack of meaning. Society deprives people of any foundational belief. Some people instinctively find meaning, but the dominant philosophy—atheistic materialism—offers no explanation. Instead, we’re told to take a pill to fix our emotions, which are seen as mere brain chemistry. If life feels meaningless, adjust your brain chemistry. That’s the prevailing solution, but it’s deeply flawed. This worldview is the biggest obstacle to practicing astrology and magic effectively. For example, if someone gravitates toward the sidereal zodiac because it "logically corresponds to the actual stars," that reveals an atheistic materialist perspective. It’s not inherently bad... but it’s important to recognize where you’re coming from. Many people reject the label because "atheistic materialism" sounds negative, but acknowledging it is key to understanding your assumptions.

I have a lot of people say, "I'm not an atheistic materialist," because it sounds bad. It sounds like that's an evil thing to be. It sounds like, I don’t want to be that. But I’m like, It’s fine; there’s nothing wrong with that. The problem is not recognizing what your view of reality is. I mean, you have atheists, and they’re going crazy because they’re like, Everybody knows this is all fake, right? All this stuff? And yet people still believe in God. It must be very frustrating to be an atheist in that sense because they align with the worldview and have a coherent, internally consistent philosophy—more or less. But then everybody else is like, Yeah, I believe in God, and there’s nothing but matter and energy. It’s like, Whoa! There’s a lot of really baroque, strange, contradictory stuff going on with that. That’s just how people are. The magical stuff — energy and all that — stems from this view.

If your automatic assumptions come from an atheistic, materialistic standpoint, and you try to do magic or astrology, you’ll wrong-foot yourself constantly. Your instinctual reactions will always be off, which will make things extremely difficult. Plus, deep down, you’re going to doubt it. In your heart of hearts, you won’t really believe in it, and that’s not helpful. That’s where the placebo effect comes in. I’m like, That’s basically incredibly powerful magic that comes from trust, from belief. You can do amazing things with it in terms of healing. It’s not always predictable, but you block that power if you lack belief.

Think of an Olympic athlete. If they go into a race believing they’re going to fail, how are they going to perform? While magic isn’t 100% based on faith, if you don’t believe in it, it messes you up to a certain extent. For me, stepping away from atheistic materialism was a real struggle. It’s like a black hole; it sucks in everyone’s thinking. It’s so powerful that it’s extremely hard to escape its orbit. And you don’t necessarily have to escape it. I’m not saying, Oh, you must do this because it’s the good thing to do. But it’s a little irrational to practice magic while holding the underlying assumption that magic can’t work. So, that’s what I would say. We could spend a hundred years talking about worldview, but I think it’s the absolute bedrock issue and the biggest obstacle we face today. We’ve reached a point where people have moved beyond Sun-sign astrology. People now have a relatively sophisticated understanding of various techniques. But to truly master astrology or magic, you can’t disbelieve in it. If your philosophical basis is messed up, it will block you continuously.

Ike Baker

I find this contamination... Obviously, there’s been a huge explosion in academic erudition regarding magic. Some of that work — like translations — has been pretty good. But a lot of it takes this dissectional approach to Western occultism, astrology, and similar fields. They study the exterior trappings while ignoring the subjective experience. The subjective component is so prevalent in things like magic. I’ve been practicing for almost 20 years in one form or another, and the first lesson for me was unlearning these completely unconscious perspective lenses that are built into us. Are you seeing any change in that within the astrological community? I know Hellenistic astrology is big now. What are your thoughts on that in relation to what you do?

Christopher Warnock

The Hellenistic astrology that’s popular now is really just a grab bag of techniques that modern astrology pulls from. I don’t want to be too pejorative about it because I like modern astrology. I do natal astrology and psychological readings, and that’s probably one of the things I’m best at. So I’m not by any means against modern astrology. It’s sort of like a chocolate or ice cream preference—it’s just a matter of taste. We all have our preferences. I have a preference for the way I do things and for my school, but that’s all it is. It’s like, I like the Hawkeyes. If you’re from Iowa State, then you’re going to like the Cyclones. Me saying I like the Hawkeyes doesn’t mean that’s objectively the best. So as I go through this, I might sound a little down on modern astrology, but it’s a preference thing. It’s a valid school. Anyhow, the way modern astrology works is you look at everybody else’s school, and it’s like a big pile of techniques - a garbage heap, really. You rummage through it, pull out random pieces, and stick them together like Tinker Toys to create your own unique practice, which ends up being the same as everybody else’s.

Hellenistic astrology is useful for pulling out specific techniques. You grab a couple of techniques, and voilà—you’re a Hellenistic astrologer! Personally, I wish I had never started using Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto. I use them like fixed stars, in an extremely limited way—as sensitive points, maybe like an Arabic part. I don’t use them in planetary hour systems or essential dignity systems. They don’t rule signs, and I don’t make aspects with them. But I wish I hadn’t used them at all because people say, Well, you use them, so you’re not purely traditional. Otherwise, my technique is 100% what William Lilly would have done in 1647. Not only that, but I have the same worldview he did. This approach is typical in horary astrology. If you go to a horary astrologer in the QHP school or Olivia Barclay’s school, they’ll share a commonality with others. Their techniques are 95% based on Medieval and Renaissance practices.

If you look at someone who calls themselves a Hellenistic astrologer, their practice might be 25% Hellenistic techniques mixed with a modern, atheistic materialist philosophy—often unconsciously. It’s like someone saying, I’m a cowboy. And when you ask how, they reply, Well, I like cowboys. I’m into cowboys. I’m a spiritual cowboy. They don’t have a hat, a cow, or a horse, but they insist they’re a cowboy. That’s what I’d say about modern astrology—it’s all modern. The problem with Rob Schmidt, who started the revival of Hellenistic astrology, is that he refused to do practical astrology. He wanted to be an academic, so he focused on translation work and said, My students will do the practical work. But nobody really took him up on it. The people who call themselves Hellenistic astrologers often have a very modern component in their practice. If you press them on causality, they’ll talk about energy. That’s the problem. Even horary astrologers, if you ask them about causality, will talk about energy. I don’t know how that fits with horary.

When I started in 1998—probably before some people watching this were born—the traditional astrologers didn’t want to touch astrological magic with a ten-foot pole. No way. It was too freaky, too associated with demons and bad spirits. Magic made them look bad. Traditional astrologers wanted to appear scientific or legit—maybe even get insurance reimbursement for counseling. The magical stuff was a bad look. But now, particularly among younger people (and I can say that because I’m 60), magic is cool. That’s a big change, and I think it’s great. However, it’s still hard because you can’t publish a peer-reviewed journal article that says angels are real. If you try to argue that, you’ll be deemed self-evidently insane. It’s not considered true. But at least we’re not forced to argue against it. It’s perfectly okay to be Catholic, for example, but astrology is still controversial. I’m also a lawyer, and the bar once came after me on an ethics complaint because I’m an astrologer. After a long process, they decided it was okay as long as I kept my legal and astrological practices totally separate.

The higher you go up in the power structure, in the elite, the less acceptable this stuff is. I could never be a judge or hold any kind of position of authority. It’s impossible — I would just get ripped apart. People say things like, "Oh, but it’s astrology," as if that makes it okay. It reminds me of when I used to go to Ann Arbor for the Hash Bash. Everyone would get high, and people would get arrested, but they'd say, "It’s Hash Bash!" It’s still illegal, idiot! And that’s how astrology is viewed—it’s still taboo. It’s not like the Catholic Church, though. If you think about it, transubstantiation—the belief that the spiritual essence of the host transforms into the body of Christ—seems more ridiculous than astrology. Astrology simply says that the planets have a cyclical relationship to earthly events. That doesn’t seem crazy, but Catholics have a better lobby, and astrologers have none. In the federal legal system, the country is divided into circuits. I’m in the Eighth Circuit, where a ruling came down about fortune-telling. The court said, "If you want to hire a fortune-teller, that’s your business. It’s not the government’s role to dictate beliefs." You can’t make it illegal. Typically, statutes that make astrology illegal get tossed out because they assume it’s self-evidently fraudulent. Charging for something that’s "fraudulent" seems like it should be outlawed, but the courts argue that people are free to believe what they want. The First Amendment is helpful in this regard.

I spoke to someone in Las Vegas, where astrologers must be licensed. You pay a fee, post your rates, and that’s it. I thought, "How cool — a licensed Las Vegas astrologer!" But this is the reality. People say, "Science and religion are coming together." They’re not. It’s impossible. Science, since the Enlightenment, has been about destroying superstition and refusing to acknowledge anything beyond mechanistic causality. Even with quantum mechanics, there’s no recognition of personality. It’s not like quarks have quirks or are people. Quantum phenomena are abstract—wave-particle dualities or whatever. But science refuses to allow the idea of personality, even though it’s a functional way to conceptualize certain phenomena. For instance, I read about evolution and how conifers evolved before flowering trees (angiosperms). The book said pine trees "decided" to move to fire-prone areas to survive competition. Of course, the author would deny there’s any intelligence behind this, but it’s clear there’s a kind of collective intelligence operating. Thinking of it as a "personality" isn’t entirely wrong—it’s a useful conceptual model.

In Buddhism, one of the core teachings is anatta, or no-self. While the self is ultimately an illusion, it’s functionally useful to relate to beings as individuals, whether humans, cats, or even robots. It’s the same with "Mother Nature" — people say she doesn’t exist, but neither do "you," in the Buddhist view. The sense of self is just an illusion of continuity, an algorithm running in our minds. But modern science can’t accept the personhood of anything, even humans sometimes. Victorian ideas of "personhood" were limited to white, upper-class Englishmen. Now we extend it to all Homo sapiens—our species' official name is Homo sapiens sapiens, the "wise wise man." It’s ironic, given how we handle nuclear weapons, genocide, and climate change. Very "wise," right? Angels, for example, are a useful interface for understanding certain realities. We constantly model the ultimate reality using our worldviews. That’s the key—what are your models, and how do they shape your understanding? I wanted a coherent philosophy that aligned with my worldview and practice. Traditional astrology provides that because it’s rooted in a spiritual worldview. Every pre-modern society saw the spiritual as primary and the material as secondary. This works for magic and astrology. Otherwise, you end up with a disconnect.

Hellenistic astrology has potential if someone fully embraces the Greek worldview. They could study theurgy, follow the old gods, and adopt a spiritual system that treats astrology as real. Vedic astrology does this—it has a traditional philosophy, methodology, and system. That’s cool. But cherry-picking techniques, like using "spear-carrying," doesn’t make someone a Hellenistic astrologer. Modern astrology, on the other hand, is open to everything. It’s like Lego — you plug in whatever you want. But techniques don’t work in isolation. They rely on the practitioner’s experience, intuition, and conceptual knowledge, much like medical diagnosis. It’s not purely scientific. That's got a tremendous amount of intuition built into it based on experience as well—and judgment, right? And that's not scientific, you know. Because it's not like, Oh, I put this electron together with a chemical reaction; I'm always going to get the same thing. I mean, a lot of the astrologer's experience and intuition plays an incredibly important role in prediction. And it can be developed too. That’s the thing I’ve noticed over time. You also kind of need a little bit of a talent for it. Some people just can't do it for whatever reason. But you can develop it. You need both—a good conceptual system with solid information and intuition. Together, those allow you to make accurate predictions, which is really important.

Ike Baker

Does your astrological practice help you develop your intuition, or do you have other practices as well?

Christopher Warnock

The first step is to stop doubting that intuition exists. If you come from a strict nihilist standpoint where everything is meaningless, that's going to undermine you all the way. If you don't trust yourself or even trust that intuition is philosophically possible, you’re screwed. There's nothing you can do about it. So, you need to be in a mindset and worldview where intuition is possible. Then, the next thing is to accept that you don’t necessarily know everything that's going on. A lot of people try to rationalize, like with Mercury retrograde. They'll say, Oh, after the fact, I knew what was happening. Or they'll look at something like Hitler's chart and say, Look, this explains Normandy or everything else. But you already know the outcome, so that’s not astrology—it’s not predictive. To me, the gold standard is this: you have a chart of an unknown situation—be it a horary chart, a natal chart, or whatever. You examine that chart, and using your intuition and accumulated knowledge, you make a prediction. You write down that prediction, including the astrological factors. Then, you see what happens. That's the gold standard.

Do that about 500 times. You can do that for anything — even if you're a psychic. Write down your impressions before you know the outcome. But anything where, after it’s already happened, you're looking at the chart and trying to explain it? That’s not predictive astrology. I ran a great experiment that illustrates this point. I showed a chart that had heavy Scorpio rising and a lot of planets in the 8th house. I said, Oh, it’s from 1880. Must be a serial killer. People immediately jumped to, Jack the Ripper! Then I revealed it was actually Gandhi's chart. The reaction? "Well, Gandhi's like a serial killer." It just proves that if you already know the outcome, you can make any chart fit anything. So, it’s not predictive unless you're forecasting in advance. The same goes for Mercury retrograde. The issue is that Mercury retrograde applies to everyone on the planet. So, if Mercury retrograde were as catastrophic as people claim, all communication would collapse, cars would universally break down, and nothing would run on time. Obviously, that doesn’t happen. I did a video on the functions of astrology. And while I don't want to be too harsh, one major function of astrology is to provide a false sense of understanding and reassurance. People come to you with questions like, When will I get a job? I tell them, Look, I could say, "You're not getting a job," but would that help you? Half the time, they’re like, But I have to get a job. My response? This isn’t a $900 psychic hotline. This is an attempt to accurately predict what's most likely to happen. Sometimes, people just want reassurance. I’ve had clients pay $85 for me to essentially tell them no. And I say, Is that going to help you? If not, don’t ask. There are plenty of questions I don’t ask or divinations I don’t perform because I don’t want to know the answer. But if you do ask, you have to respect the answer. Don’t keep asking the same question until you get the response you want—that’s reassurance-seeking, not divination.

If you want reassurance, get counseling or talk to your friends. Say, I’m freaked out—tell me everything’s going to be okay. That’s fine. But don’t confuse that with serious predictive work. It’s like going to a doctor for a cancer diagnosis. You don’t want them to lie to make you feel better; you want the truth. Horary astrology, in particular, is incredibly predictive. But it’s often negative because people only ask questions when there’s a problem. If your relationship is great, you’re not going to ask a horary question about it. When issues arise, that’s when people start asking, and sometimes the answer is, Yes, it’s going to end. When I started doing horary, I noticed a huge change in my confidence. I’ve done over 5,000 horary readings, and now I trust myself. Here’s how I approach it: someone asks a question. I mechanically list out the relevant factors. In horary, you don’t analyze the entire chart—just specific pieces. For instance, if someone asks about marriage, I look at the 1st house for the querent, the 7th house for their partner, the rulers of those houses, and the planets within them. I also check aspects. I write all of that down. As I’m writing, the chart starts talking to me. I see underlying patterns. The biggest mistake people make is focusing on individual factors. Astrology isn’t about isolated details; it’s about synthesis. The meaning lies in the overarching patterns, not in breaking the chart down into tiny pieces. Some elements might not fit perfectly, and that’s okay. But it’s essential to see the bigger picture objectively. This is why it’s so difficult to read charts for yourself. You have to be highly emotional to ask the question, but completely detached to interpret the answer. It’s like flipping a switch from full emotion to total objectivity — it’s incredibly hard to do.

But do it again and again and again, and start trusting yourself. I’ll do my analysis, and I’ll be like, “You know what? I feel like this.” And I’ll say that. It’s like, I’ll say, “The chart says this, and my impression is this.” You know what I mean? That kind of differentiates between the two. But even in my looking at the chart, there’s always an intuition on a judgment level with it. The attorney stuff—see, the model for modern astrology is a psychologist, right? It’s psychological astrology. If you go to a psychologist, they’re not going to tell you, “Oh, you’re probably not going to recover from this,” or, “You’re probably not going to—you know, a third of people don’t get better from therapy.” They’re not going to say that because they want to give everyone a chance. They want to be upbeat. Modern astrology is upbeat. It’s all upbeat — except for Void of Course Moon and retrograde Mercury, which are catastrophically disastrous. They have to carry all the weight of the negativity because the rest of it is all positive. Whereas Medieval Renaissance astrology, because it tries to be an accurate model of reality, has to include everything—it has to encompass the most positive, the most negative, and all the shades of gray in between. It’s designed to be predictive, so the tools are there. In contrast, with a psychological reading, I don’t need to focus so much on essential dignities. For example, if I’m doing a psychological reading, the quality of the planet comes through. If you have Saturn, you have a Saturn quality. The fact that Saturn is in Leo matters less. I did a reading recently where Saturn was in Leo, and the client was asking about spiritual matters. I said, “Saturn gives asceticism, solitary spiritual practice, meditation, Zen-like qualities.” But because it’s in Leo and in detriment, I added, “You might face spiritual adversity—problems or doubts that could disrupt your spiritual life.”

In horary astrology, however, Saturn in Leo as a significator would indicate that achieving what you want will be difficult. For example, if someone asks, "Should I go on this trip?" and Saturn in Leo is their significator, I’d say, "Probably not." Either you might decide against it because of negativity, or external circumstances like illness might prevent you from going. It’s unlikely the trip would be enjoyable. That’s the difference. In a natal chart, Saturn in Leo might reflect a shadow side—qualities like stubbornness, aggression, or poor judgment. These are psychological interpretations. But in horary, it’s more practical and immediate. There’s nuance in this. Many people assume knowing natal astrology is enough to do horary, but they’re different systems. You have to switch models and recognize that one doesn’t equal the other.

When it comes to talismans, for example, my approach is this: if a planet is well-dignified in your natal chart, you already have a good relationship with it. The talisman will likely work well for you. If it’s unafflicted, you can still use it, though it might be less effective. If the planet is afflicted, you might have a more challenging relationship with it. In such cases, I’d suggest divination before proceeding. But people sometimes overcomplicate things. Someone might say, "Saturn’s in the third house, so I want a Saturn talisman," or, "My grandfather’s name was Saturn, so it feels right." That’s not how traditional astrology works. A common issue I see is people attributing random events to their talismans. For example, someone might say, "Four weeks after I made a talisman, my grandfather’s barber fell down the stairs—so that’s the talisman’s fault!" They claim they can see the cause in the chart, but that’s speculative. There’s a danger in having a little knowledge—it can lead to overconfidence. It’s like thinking you can become a 747 pilot by reading a book and lurking online. This is complex work—the rocket science of the Renaissance. It took me years to learn astrology and astrological magic, and even more time to practice and refine those skills. That’s not to say you can’t pick up useful knowledge, but people often overestimate their understanding.

Ike Baker

You wrote a book called The Celestial Way: The Spiritual Path of the Stars and Planets. Can you tell us a little bit about the book, and I guess the course of practice that it covers?

Christopher Warnock

Sure. I mean, my whole approach to this is based on the intertwined nature of what people might consider a spiritual path—like Buddhism, Zen, or Sufism—and astrology. As I mentioned, astrology is applied spirituality. I started thinking, "Can I use astrology as a spiritual path?" Now, here's the thing: my own spiritual path has been what I would call Jnana Yoga. I don’t know if you're familiar with that, but in Indian philosophical practice, there are different paths, or yogas. For example, Jnana Yoga is the wisdom or inquiry path, while Bhakti Yoga is the devotional path—devotion to a guru, to love, to the divine. Then there's Raja Yoga, which focuses on meditation, pranayama, and things like that, and Mantra Yoga, which involves repeating sacred sounds. In Buddhism, you have Tantric practices as well. These are all different methodologies. The one I’ve followed most deeply is Jnana Yoga, which is primarily about inquiry. The closest modern analog to this would be modern non-duality, which you might be familiar with—people like Adyashanti, for example.

The Celestial Way

However, Jnana Yoga doesn't have much to do with astrology. Astrology, in my view, is more like a tantric practice. The problem is, there aren't any effective public Western tantric spiritual paths. On the other hand, Jnana Yoga works, and it’s very effective. So, I began to think there’s a gap here. What I’d say is, my experience—although this is a little tricky to explain—has been that, in some ways, astrology has a tantric nature. In Zen, there’s a concept called kensho, which is a taste of enlightenment, and that experience is about the realization of “no self.” But I can’t say, “I, Christopher Warnock, have experienced no self,” because that doesn’t make sense. When I talk about “no self,” people often look at me like I’m out of my mind, but that’s the closest I can point to when describing the experience.

Because our most basic sense is our sense of self, right? Our sense of awareness. Yet, everyone has experienced "no-self." You go to sleep at night and enter deep dreamless sleep—not the dream sleep, but the deep dreamless state. In that state, you’re in "no-self." People have all sorts of "no-self" experiences, whether on psychedelic drugs or as part of daily life. These experiences often happen spontaneously. For example, you wake up in the middle of the night, and for a moment, you don’t know where you are or who you are. Then it clicks: Oh yeah, I’m at the conference in Kansas City.

There are constant gaps in the self. It’s like a cartoon. A cartoon consists of still pictures — 32 or 64 frames per second. By presenting those stills quickly, there’s an illusion of movement and continuity. That’s what the self is: a series of experiences creating an illusion of continuity, which we call the ego-self. So, you might wonder, what’s the connection between astrology and that concept of non-self? Initially, I thought there wasn’t one. But I realized something: we are so spiritually impoverished that we don’t even know what spirituality is. The celestial way is heavily focused on worldview. In traditional societies, people didn’t need to "discover" spirituality—they lived in its context. They could talk to someone who had spiritual experiences. In contrast, if you have a Kundalini experience or a "no-self" experience today, a psychiatrist might think you’re insane. We lack a cultural framework for such experiences.

Part of what I aim to do is provide that context: to explain spirituality not as a concept to be debated, but as something to be experienced. Astrological magic, for me, becomes a devotional practice. It’s almost like Catholicism — I venerate the celestial angels. I burn incense and invoke them, not because I want something, but to honor them. That’s how I approach it, but it’s not the only way. It’s perfectly fine to say, I’m doing this because I want something; please give it to me. That’s a more magical approach. The two blend, but my approach leans devotional. The book I wrote includes both an explanation of spirituality and devotional practices, like the daily planetary practice. Each day of the week is ruled by a planet—that’s where the seven-day week originates.

For example, today is Tuesday, ruled by Mars. I wear red for Mars, light a candle and incense, and recite a short invocation. I’ve done this every day for 20 years. While you can perform high-intensity interactions, like invoking a planet during a carefully timed chart election, the daily planetary practice is low-intensity. Its power lies in repetition. Over time, I’ve developed a strong relationship with the celestial angels through consistent practice. Another practice I mention is astrological charity. For example, on Saturn’s day (Saturday), you could give a donation to someone ruled by Saturn, like a homeless person. You make a vow and keep it. This isn’t about trying to get something; it’s about building harmony with the planet. The book also discusses foundational texts, like Picatrix, the key grimoire for astrological magic, written in 1000 AD and translated into Latin in 1256. It’s the Bible of astrological magic in the Middle Ages and Renaissance.

One notable concept in Picatrix is "Perfect Nature," akin to a guardian angel but also the spirit of the individual. Perfect Nature is united with the planet that rules you, representing both your higher self and something separate. The text includes an astrological ritual for connecting with Perfect Nature. I also explore how astrological magic appears in other traditions, like Japanese Buddhism, where it’s integrated into esoteric practices like Shingon Tantra. Across cultures, when people share a similar worldview, they often develop similar practices. A critical takeaway is the importance of grounding oneself in a spiritual tradition. While some try to "reinvent the wheel," they often end up replicating what has already been established. Traditional frameworks provide depth and guidance, enriching spiritual practices. For me, everything I do—whether as a lawyer, astrologer, or magician—flows from the same philosophy. I strive for integration, avoiding compartmentalization. That’s how I approach life.

Ike Baker

Thank you, Christopher. To wrap up, could you recommend three books for listeners interested in your work and astrological magic? Feel free to mention your own.

Christopher Warnock

Sure. The three Hermetic Arts — alchemy, astrology, and magic — are interconnected. I respect alchemy, though I’ve never had a calling for it. I read a few books to gain a basic understanding, but my focus is astrology and magic. For those who think they can learn everything from books, I’d say books are helpful for background, but real understanding comes from practice and experience. There is not a substitute, in my view, if you're into medieval or Renaissance astrology, for taking a course. I mean, I did that—I had a teacher. That's what I would say about it. The people I’ve seen, there are some self-taught individuals, and it's like they kind of got there. For example, in astrological magic, they lack the predictive stuff, so they don't have the fullest understanding of the subject. They only have an electional astrological magic approach.

Even the people who have deeply studied and practiced it lack certain things because they don't have that full background. That's what I would say. If you're interested in astrological magic from a Medieval or Renaissance standpoint, I have a book called Secrets of Planetary Magic. It's a nice introduction. That’s what I would recommend as an introduction. There’s not a lot of other introductory material out there. The Celestial Way is interesting if you're into spiritual aspects—pushing my own books here! I also have a Mansions of the Moon book, which is a fun way to whet your appetite. However, I really do not subscribe to the idea that you can learn all of this by reading books. It’s armchair knowledge. You could read a thousand books, but if you still have an atheist, materialistic mindset, it's just bouncing off you—it’s just entertainment. You need to do the work.

If you're going to engage at this level, you’ll need a teacher. It's just too complex. That’s what I think. I mean, take Alchemy. I’ve read a couple of books on it. There was a great book by a chemist who started replicating a lot of the processes. It was fascinating because he was very sympathetic to the spiritual side of it while doing the laboratory work. That was a really cool book. But I didn’t think, “Okay, now I’m an alchemist!” or “Now I understand it all!” I couldn't imagine being able to do Alchemy without being taught. It’s way too complex. The same applies to Medieval and Renaissance astrology. If you want to do modern astrology, fine—you can pick that up in 15 minutes. It’s not very hard. But even for natal psychological astrology, it takes effort and practice. Let’s say you took one of my courses, like horary astrology. You’d still need to do 50 charts before you’d probably be ready to practice independently. It takes time and effort, like carpentry. If someone said, "I want to be a carpenter. Which book should I read to become one?"—you can’t become a carpenter just by reading a book!

Ike Baker

I'm a carpenter, actually, so I agree with you.

Christopher Warnock

Right! Could you imagine if someone said, "Yeah, I read a thousand books, and now I'm a carpenter," but they've never picked up a chisel or a piece of wood? How would they do that?

Ike Baker

How did you learn? Did you apprentice?

Christopher Warnock

Yes! What kind of carpentry do you do? House carpentry?

Ike Baker

I do all sorts of carpentry. I apprenticed. I mean, I didn’t—I was super green. I went out and bought a book, but I didn’t even read it. I literally spent the first three months digging holes and pouring cement, to be honest.

Christopher Warnock

But this is the traditional method! It’s interesting. I studied history, and they split it into ancient, medieval, and modern periods. I studied Renaissance history at St. Andrews in Scotland. They still had the attitude that you're training to be a professional historian, so we did on-the-job training for that. We did lectures, discussion groups, and similar activities because that’s what you do as a professor, right? But see, that model has been expanded to everything. Now, if you want to be a fireman, you're being taught how to be a professor. I've seen PhDs in turf management, and I bet they sit in lectures and think, "What the heck?" I mean, law has been totally ruined by law schools. When I came out of law school, I hated it. I thought it was loathsome. But the practice of law, I really enjoy.

In the old days, when you were a lawyer, you'd apprentice. You would learn and read law with another lawyer and watch them as they did all the work, learning how to do it that way. I would say you might take a year of classes, maybe, but that's what I would suggest for people. But see, a lot of lawyers now are just accountants with a law degree. They don’t actually practice. Definitely, there are a lot of things that have been ruined by turning them into an academic process. It's great for on-the-job training and apprenticeship if you're a professor. But it's not a very effective methodology for teaching anything else. The educational industrial complex is a whole other topic, though. Luckily, my stuff is all outside of it. My students come to me because they want to learn. I have the best students because they're only here to learn. My courses are funny, too, because there are no deadlines and no tests. People are always saying, "Oh, I didn’t get it in on time," and I'm like, "There is no deadline. Do it when you need to, and get it done when you feel like it." There are no tests either. I just make sure people have mastered the material in the lesson before moving on to the next one. If they haven’t mastered it, we keep working on it until they get it.

Ike Baker

Yeah, I have a friend who actually took your course and spoke very highly of it. People can take that at renaissanceastrology.com, right?

Christopher Warnock

Yeah, if you go to renaissanceastrology.com, at the top of the page, there are links to talismans, readings, courses, books, and all that. If you follow those links, you can get the complete information. But it just depends. I'm not for everybody. I'm a very Saturnine person. I can get cranky. It's not like, "Oh, I learn as much from my students as they learn from me." No, I’m definitely the teacher. I'm kind of a bit of a… well, a little cranky. At the same time, I'm at the top of my game right now. If you want to learn from the guy who started the ball rolling, then that's good. It just depends on where you're coming from. Just because our personalities don’t mix doesn’t mean there’s anything wrong with you or anything wrong with me. It’s just how it is. I teach the courses kind of like a graduate school thing. It’s funny, because I’m so down on that sort of stuff, but it’s basically a lot of reading and writing. That’s not the only way to learn. Sometimes, I get people who are a little dyslexic or have different learning needs. It's been interesting for me to adjust to those different learning styles. That's been really fun—figuring out how to explain things or add things on to help people.

My wife’s a little like this; she has Scorpio Mercury. She either knows it completely or doesn’t know it at all. There are people like that, too, with different learning styles. It's been interesting to adjust to those different styles and needs. Some people ask about lectures, and I'm like, "There are no lectures." To me, that’s an extremely inefficient way of learning. You sit up, read from your notes, and they take notes down—what’s the point of that? The same goes for having everyone together in a class at the same pace. Like I said, that’s part of the industrial complex. What I do is more like an old-school correspondence course. You go at your own pace and learn as you go. I won’t let people go faster than one lesson every three weeks because people want to finish everything in 15 minutes. I tell them, "It has to sink in. You need to absorb all that information. It takes time." We start off with worldview.

Christopher Warnock

I have this guy, and he's funny because he's a great student, but he keeps emailing me saying, "I'm confused by this, I'm confused by that," and I keep saying to him, "It's because you have an atheistic, materialistic worldview." I mean, it doesn't make sense to you because it doesn't fit within your understanding of causality or philosophy—not because there's an individual problem with the technique. That's your root problem. It's hard, though. He's really working hard on that, but he still has a little bit of a problem with it.

So, coming back to the thing I started with: that worldview stuff is so key. It's really my mission. The other mission I have is the idea that flavors and preferences come into play. Whether you do it your way or my way, those are both valid. We need to jump out of this idea that there's only one right way of doing things, and everyone else is wrong. My methodology is just the way I do it. If someone else doesn't want to do it that way, that's perfectly fine and perfectly valid. There are lots of different ways even within the tradition. You don't have to be in the tradition. If you want to do something outside of it or in a different way, that’s perfectly fine, too.

We just need to have a lot more tolerance for diversity and variant views. I always end up in the minority, so I kind of have to insist on everyone having their own view, or I’ll get squashed—because that’s what always seems to happen.

Ike Baker

Alright, well, Christopher Warnock, thank you so much for taking a little bit of your day to sit and talk with me. I really loved everything you had to say, and I think this is going to be a great conversation for people to hear. I think it’s definitely something that a lot of people need to hear and will benefit from. Personally, the people I learned the most from were a little on the cranky side but got the job done.

Christopher Warnock

It is what it is. It's one of those things. Like I said, if you don’t like walnut ice cream, you don’t like walnut ice cream. That’s just the way it goes. What’s nice now is that 20 years ago, I was the only one. Now, there are so many people doing it. There are a lot of people out there, and a lot of people teaching, too. If, for whatever reason, you can’t find someone who suits your style, there’s still someone else you can learn from.

I think that’s really wonderful about this. I wouldn’t want to be the only one, and I definitely wouldn’t want to be the "pope" of astrological magic. That would be horrific because it would mean there weren’t a lot of other options, you know what I mean? So, I just think the way this has grown and exploded is really exciting. We’re living in an exciting time. I get up, and I’m cranky about this and that, but if there weren’t all these people interested in it, you wouldn’t have space for the one person who’s really serious about it. We’re getting an increasing number of people who are really serious and taking it in some really interesting directions. So, I think it’s a really exciting time to be practicing any kind of esoteric stuff or magic. I’m just happy to continue playing a role.

Ike Baker

Yeah, and I’m happy to have you on my podcast. I appreciate it so much. Thank you.

Christopher Warnock

Alright, great. Thank you.