Doing Readings for Those in The Public Eye

[katrinka]

11 hours ago, Misterei said:

Then again, if I never read on *does X really love me?* I would lose about 50% of my business.

At least 50%.
We've always taken these questions. And It's nice having things like food on the table and electricity. It strikes me as extremely privileged and entitled to suddenly tell us we should all alienate the majority of our customer base. I suspect this originated with trust fund kids.

 

11 hours ago, Misterei said:

I don't encourage romantic obsession on some person who doesn't even know you exist -- because that's psychic stalking. I don't read that type of situation other than to encourage the client to move on.

I read on those - most of the time the cards will tell them to move on. Occasionally they don't. In those situations it's possible that I've been mistaken in assuming that the other person doesn't know they exist. In any case, it's my job to stay neutral and detached and just relay what the cards are saying.

 

11 hours ago, Misterei said:

If their feelings get hurt from  media attention they have private jets to fly them to private resorts and get daily massages to overcome the stress of it all.

 

Sometimes they can't, though. Some of them are horribly affected by it, and there's all manner of substance abuse and unaliving oneself that can go part and parcel with fame.

In 1931, the tabloid Coast Reporter ran a 3 week series about Clara Bow's private life claiming that she had sex in public and threesomes with prostitutes, would do the deed with dogs when she couldn’t find a human and regularly held orgies for the USC football team and would sexually service every player there. When Clara saw that, she literally vomited. IIRC, she sued and eventually won, but the damage was done and I'm sure that this (along with her hellish childhood, psycho mom, creepy dad and abuse from the studio system) played a part in the psychological breaks she suffered later.

I have no problem talking about celebs - I'm doing it here. So I have no problem reading about them either.

But money can't always make everything All Better. The Human Condition is what it is. The trick is not to be an a-hole.

 

 

Edited January 4 by katrinka

[xStardustx]

On 1/1/2025 at 6:38 AM, RickInBakersfield said:

My question is do you believe it's okay to do a reading for someone who is in the public eye like a politician or a celebrity...even though they don't know you?

 

I think as a political figure/celebrity/famous person, it is expected for people to talk about you. While it may not be their sole purpose or goal, it comes with the territory of being in the public eye. 

 

Secondly, when it comes to celebrities, especially performers (comedians, music artists, etc), are you pulling cards on them or the image/persona they adopt for the stage? 

 

Dolly Parton is a country singer. That is what most people know her as but if you dig deeper, she has a lot of causes she supports. If you were to pull cards on Dolly Parton, are you pulling them on her as the singer or the activist? 

 

In a lot of spiritual circles, there is a lot of talk about protecting our energy, protecting ourselves from negative energy, protection from psychic spies/vampires - the list goes on. Bearing that in mind, is the spiritual community acknowledging accountability for protecting ones self from such things in the first place? 

 

If so, wouldn't the logical conclusion be that it is up to every individual to protect themselves from this sort of thing? 

 

And if they are failing to protect themselves, who is really to blame? 

 

The general public for wanting to know about public figures? 

 

Or the public figures for placing themselves in that position? 

 

In our current society, everyone wants to know everything all the time. Content creators are pumping content faster than ever, information and data is being exchanged faster than ever. 

 

There is a huge difference between a so-called journalist twisting words or an interview to make a false narrative that is juicier than the truth and a random person in their house pulling a few cards on Nicholas Cage. 

 

A huge difference between a random internet stranger going, "Who IS Stardust?" and pulling a card or three versus a random stranger creeping around my yard and peeking in my windows. 

 

As a social species, we have to acknowledge the nuances and the position all participants are in - it is this acknowledgement paired with our intention that determine whether it's malicious or harmless. 

 

Whether it's ethical or unethical. 

[Misterei]

On 1/3/2025 at 5:17 PM, katrinka said:

... I read on those - most of the time the cards will tell them to move on. Occasionally they don't. In those situations it's possible that I've been mistaken in assuming that the other person doesn't know they exist. In any case, it's my job to stay neutral and detached and just relay what the cards are saying.

Yes, I do mean to say the CARDS show "X has zero romantic interest in you". I've lost clients this way. I would have to start telling a false story that's not in the cards to satisfy their illusion that X is going to marry them [or whatever]. If I pull cards 3x in and every time cards say X has no romantic interest or X is unavailable for romantic connection at this time ... well ... I'm just no good at pretending the cards say something else to earn a buck  🙄

I'm lucky tho. My website filters out most of these types. They tend to go for advertising that promises Love readings and Twin Flames and my site advertises NONE of that.

Back to the topic, tho. One reason I don't like this sort of reading is precisely b/c X has not given any actual or implied consent to be read on if there's no relationship. If X and Y are dating or married ... to me that's implied consent. EVERYONE talks about their love life or even seeks counseling for it. If X hit it and quit it whilst promising to call ... X is fair game for a reading, too IMHO 😉

On 1/3/2025 at 6:17 PM, xStardustx said:

 

I think as a political figure/celebrity/famous person, it is expected for people to talk about you. While it may not be their sole purpose or goal, it comes with the territory of being in the public eye. 

... Dolly Parton is a country singer. That is what most people know her as but if you dig deeper, she has a lot of causes she supports. If you were to pull cards on Dolly Parton, are you pulling them on her as the singer or the activist? 

This is an interesting point I've never considered.

On 1/3/2025 at 6:17 PM, xStardustx said:

In a lot of spiritual circles, there is a lot of talk about protecting our energy, protecting ourselves from negative energy, protection from psychic spies/vampires - the list goes on. Bearing that in mind, is the spiritual community acknowledging accountability for protecting ones self from such things in the first place? 

... If so, wouldn't the logical conclusion be that it is up to every individual to protect themselves from this sort of thing? 

Yes and no. As @katrinka mentioned with the Clara Bow story--sometimes the public and media hounds a public figure with a smear campaign, I don't know if anyone can protect themselves from false accusations if it happens.

 

Psychic self-protection for empaths or professional card readers is a different magnitude than defending yourself against a full-blown national or international media smear campaign.

 

On the personal level, I've suffered terribly from even a small group socially / psychically attacking me. No matter how much psychic self-protection I did. For me, the only thing that worked was to physically cut all contact with the attackers AND do psychic hygeine to clean them out of my aura. But these were actual social attacks -- not someone pulling a couple cards on me. As you say, there's a difference between pulling a few cards vs. actually stalking or attacking someone.

 

[xStardustx]

5 hours ago, Misterei said:

Back to the topic, tho. One reason I don't like this sort of reading is precisely b/c X has not given any actual or implied consent to be read on if there's no relationship. If X and Y are dating or married ... to me that's implied consent. EVERYONE talks about their love life or even seeks counseling for it. If X hit it and quit it whilst promising to call ... X is fair game for a reading, too IMHO 😉

 

This is a brilliant approach. I appreciate you sharing this perspective. This will help me now and forever. Very clarifying. 

 

5 hours ago, Misterei said:

On the personal level, I've suffered terribly from even a small group socially / psychically attacking me. No matter how much psychic self-protection I did. For me, the only thing that worked was to physically cut all contact with the attackers AND do psychic hygeine to clean them out of my aura. But these were actual social attacks -- not someone pulling a couple cards on me. As you say, there's a difference between pulling a few cards vs. actually stalking or attacking someone.

 

Oh, I am so sorry you had such an awful experience! It truly is a gray/nuanced area and I think it should be taken on a case-by-case basis. 

 

It's also tricky with actors. I will use Friends as an example. Ross and Rachel (from what I hear) break up a million times. 

 

I think it's harmless to pull cards on Ross and Rachel to see if they get back together or not. Reason being is Ross and Rachel are fictional characters. It isn't real - it is a fictional story. 

 

Pulling cards on Jennifer Aniston's private life, however, feels much more invasive. Which is something else I consider as well. 

 

In some tarot groups that I left because of this, a bunch of election readings were done. Based on the results, they all thought things were going to turn out differently. 

 

This created a serious sense of false hope. As for me, I live with a political nerd and was kept in the loop on a deep level. I saw how it was all going to play out - because I was informed. For someone that isn't as informed as I am, the news could have been devastating. False hope is so damaging. 

 

If a reader wants to pull cards on people in the public eye, I think they should keep it to themselves or only share with others they truly know. And make it exceptionally clear that they can be wrong. Whenever I think about reading for public figures, I think about all the false hope built up in the example I mentioned above. 

 

After all was said and done, some were posting their readings after the fact. I exited that platform completely and found this place. This discussion is one example of what I was looking for - actual discussion on ethics, deep dives into the meanings and symbolism - this is a much more fulfilling and meatier space for tarot. At least, for me. It just kind of blew my mind that so many people talk ethics and building false hope...and it all went out the window. Granted, it's a huge deal that affects the whole world. 

 

Which is why building that false hope is even more devastating. That experience will always stick with me. I cannot, in good conscience, share readings I do with others on massive events like that. 

 

Fictional characters in live tv shows/movies is the furthest I go with it. That's just my personal preference though. 

[katrinka]

6 hours ago, Misterei said:

If I pull cards 3x in and every time cards say X has no romantic interest or X is unavailable for romantic connection at this time ...

Which is not to say it will never be. Hope springs eternal in these people, they'll be back to see if anything's changed. No need to spin tales - or lose customers.

 

[Misterei]

17 hours ago, katrinka said:

Which is not to say it will never be. Hope springs eternal in these people, they'll be back to see if anything's changed. No need to spin tales - or lose customers.

Ah!! Maybe i need to work on my delivery 🤣

[Misterei]

18 hours ago, xStardustx said:

In some tarot groups that I left because of this, a bunch of election readings were done. Based on the results, they all thought things were going to turn out differently.

We all know that personal bias affects reading for oneself, but a recent election proved an object lesson in how bias affects readings on public figures, too.

 

I observed a whole group of astrologers and tarot readers predict a certain election result which reflected their personal biases toward the public figures involved. I was 100% neutral--and made an accurate prediction. As did at least one Indian astrologer who also struck me as unbiased since it wasn't his country or his election.

 

But I suppose bias affecting readings is a different topic, so I'll stop here. Just interesting to note it can creep in for public figures, too.

Edited January 7 by Misterei

[katrinka]

22 hours ago, xStardustx said:

Which is why building that false hope is even more devastating.

That may be putting the cart before the horse. As we learned in 2016, the American public will put literally anything in office before they elect a woman. They don't like us. (Case in point: Texas. Bounties. Preventable deaths.) The whole party was indulging in false hope, cards or no cards. It was fun while it lasted, like getting high or drunk. Eventually we go chugging back into the grey depot of reality. "But let's not think about that until we have to."

Before I get dinged for talking politics, I want to say that that was simply one example showing that yes, the cards can be pushed to say what you want them to if they don't give a strong reply. A weak 'yes' is just that - weak. There are too many people out there who have not yet realized that one less-than-great card can taint the whole draw. You want to see All Good, ESPECIALLY  for something like this.

And in the end, our sitters are adults. Even the most emotionally fragile among them are aware that even the best reading is not guaranteed. Even 90% accuracy leaves 10% hooey. Things can - and will - go wrong. It's Murphy's world, unfortunately.
 

[Mister]

8 hours ago, katrinka said:

yes, the cards can be pushed to say what you want them to if they don't give a strong reply.

 

I object. For I have witnessed people pushing their cards to tell them what they want even if they give a strong reply.

The most common way applied is one of either: Avoid any assignment of "bad" characteristics to any card because, yeah, "there is no evil under the sun" (huge mistake) - or, regardless of circumstancial evidence, treat the "good" cards as eleminating the opposing force per se, disregarding the position they appear in.

 

However, that is a different topic - an interesting one, and one where it is good to know about in order to avoid pitfalls, no doubt, but still something else.

 

Concerning this thread, @RickInBakersfield I do have a small suggestion to make: Maybe rename the thread to "Doing readings on those in the public eye"?

I feel that is what we're talking about here, rather than doing a reading for someone in the public eye.

[katrinka]

54 minutes ago, Mister said:

For I have witnessed people pushing their cards to tell them what they want even if they give a strong reply.

I've seen the same. I was talking about readers, though. Not people using the cards as a prop.
 

56 minutes ago, Mister said:

The most common way applied is one of either: Avoid any assignment of "bad" characteristics to any card because, yeah, "there is no evil under the sun" (huge mistake)

The Doreen-ing of cartomancy. 🤣 Remember "Healing with the Fairies! NO BAD CARDS!!"?
The usual reason given for doing this is "self fulfilling prophecy." As if people are that weak minded and suggestible. If that were the case it would be as easy as "Attn: everyone, the cards say that you will be good people from now on. And you will send me money for delivering this vital message."
 

1 hour ago, Mister said:

treat the "good" cards as eleminating the opposing force per se, disregarding the position they appear in.

I think it was Andy who said that the Stork can eat the Snake, but the Mice can't eat the Mountain. Simple logic, but so many people ignore it.

[Mister]

Sums it up adequately.

 

I have nothing to add (here), save that Doreen never got a foothold in german card reading, and so went by my dearest part.

Spoiler

However, to be honest, the german cartomancy 'scene', if you want to call it that, doesn't even need a Dorigmanig to be messed up.

I do have hope, though, for many young people are proficient enough in foreign languages to break free from the spell.

It's in a spoiler because it is o.t., and I get the feeling I have digressed enough already (in this thread).

[katrinka]

3 hours ago, Mister said:

Doreen never got a foothold in german card reading

I like the german cartomancy community, even though I have to use google translate a lot. I was communicating with German readers when I was starting Lenormand. Kippers too. Sometimes I still do this. I like their take, and yes - while it's not perfect, there appears to be little or no Doreen-ing there.

And I've never seen any of them object to drawing cards on famous people. (See what I did there? 🤣)

Edited January 8 by katrinka

[Mister]

3 hours ago, katrinka said:

And I've never seen any of them object to drawing cards on famous people. (See what I did there? 🤣)

I do.

And it is small wonder. They are fair game, as soon as they have sway in a magnitude like the fruitboy (Thanks, @gregory, nice one with the Melon).

More so when they go around cursing left and right, playing kingmaker.

 

3 hours ago, katrinka said:

I like the german cartomancy community

Here I thought to myself: How can that be?

But yeah, Lenormand, Kipper, that is very well alive here.

My chagrin is invoked where it comes to Tarot. They are a century late. For me, both is cartomancy (Because ger. "Mantik").

Ah, they do themselves and that is that. Gotta work on my trauma.

[katrinka]

2 hours ago, Mister said:

They are fair game, as soon as they have sway in a magnitude like the fruitboy (Thanks, @gregory, nice one with the Melon).

More so when they go around cursing left and right, playing kingmaker

I like the term "fruitboy." It's going in my bag of names for that guy, along with "Space Karen" and "Apartheid Clyde."

There's a rule in comedy that it's best to avoid punching down. That's why making jokes about marginalized people can wreck a career, but punching up at people like the Muskrat is OK and to be encouraged. (Have you heard anything from Diceman lately? Me either. 😒)

I don't think of reading cards as "punching", though. I consider everyone to be fair game, for reasons previously mentioned upthread.
 

2 hours ago, Mister said:

My chagrin is invoked where it comes to Tarot. They are a century late. For me, both is cartomancy (Because ger. "Mantik").

Yes, it's all cartomancy.
I haven't really discussed Tarot with them. Most of the Germans I bump into don't really use it. One even had a Yahoo group back in the day with "No Tarot deck!!!" in the "about" section. 🤣 So I haven't had the occasion to be traumatized. It's probably for the best.
 

[Mister]

7 hours ago, katrinka said:

I consider everyone to be fair game, for reasons previously mentioned upthread.

That is fine by me, I would not have expected you to change in that regard.

 

For me, it does depend on circumstances. If I have a strong "Don't!" pinging through my head out of nowhere, I don't.

 

7 hours ago, katrinka said:

I haven't really discussed Tarot with them. [...] It's probably for the best.

In all likeliness.

Do not engage, unless you want to get close to blowing your lid or are in a state of (very) weird humor.

[Barleywine]

It's difficult to forecast world events without touching on the personalities who are often the movers-and-shakers for those events. I successfully predicted that Boris Johnson would take Great Britain (or at least England) out of the EU ("Brexit") and that Donald Trump would win (and Kamala Harris would lose for different reasons) the US Presidential election, using both tarot and horary astrology. As far as I'm concerned, if we're looking at their public activities and not prying into their private affairs, it's fair game since it occurs on a larger stage. I do it all the time for sports events.

Edited February 11 by Barleywine