What people are saying - Write a review
The author is inaccurate in much of his portrayal of Leo and fails to "dig deeper" and makes the mistake of underestimating this intense, powerful, and potentially dangerous sign.
Leo is the mighty and fierce LION of the Zodiac and its only natural predator. It is ruled by the vital and powerful Sun, rules over the Strength Tarot Card, and rules over the 5th House which includes sports and athletics (not just theatre or the arts) and so of course it's just as much of a "thrill-seeker" as its fellow fire signs and just as much an athlete.
And I firmly disagree on the claim that relationships between Scorpio and Leo suugest that Leo is the one who should "be careful" and "not play with fire." NO. Scorpio is the one that will get burned. Just like its animal symbol, a scorpion cannot tolerate too much heat and will shrivel and burn when exposed too long in the Sun. Most species of scorpions do not even possess venom deadly enough to humans.
A lion, however, no matter how seemingly playful is still a LION and most certainly has the potential to harm and kill. The same thing with a Leo's temper. Despite a Leo's seemingly "fragile" ego, it should never be forgotten by modern astrologers that actually Scorpio is the more emotionally fragile (being the fall of the Moon which rules emotions and the inner self) and just like a lion, a Leo will strike back twice as hard should a rival try to hurt him. Lions react and attack, they do not just roar and sulk contrary to flawed modern astrological belief.
There's a reason why Leo and not Scorpio, was the sign that was classified as both "bestial" and fully "feral." So astrologers should be encouraged to never make the mistake of ever underestimating Leo's own considerable propensity for power and rage. In a fight between a LION and scorpion, the lion will win. In a power struggle between a dwarf planet and our solar system's only star, the star will win (despite having a distinct orbit, it is still Pluto that orbits the sun, not the other way around). So there's truly no question who would have the upper hand and who is the one who should be careful.
Leo is just as dangerous a sign, if not more so than Scorpio precisely because most Leo's rage is direct and bold and unafraid of confrontation while Scorpio must rely on sneak attacks and usually strikes when their opponent's back is turned. So it's baffling why astrologers don't consider that cowardly but yet confuse a Leo's sociability with a "need" for constant approval and validation. If anything, Scorpio is the one that needs to watch their step and not upset the lion and it's actually Scorpio, along with Capricorn, that are the most emotionally insecure and vulnerable since they are the signs with the weakest placements for the Moon, not Leo.
So I sincerely hope that all of this is taken into account in any future works or editions. All the other signs should be careful in dealing with the Zodiac's only natural predator. Yes, the Sun can SEEM "warm, sunny, and always happy," but the Sun can also burn everything in its path and every star has the potential to become a destructive blackhole.
Leo is a powerful, intense, dominant, tempermental, feral, athletic sign and should be described as such. Astrologers should use common sense as to which is more "dangerous" by merely observing the signs: scorpion vs. lion, Sun (star) vs. Pluto (dwarf planet), fixed fire (stars) vs. fixed water (ice). Which has the upper hand in ALL of these rivalries? It should not even be a question. Scorpio is the one that needs to be careful. And if modern astrologers want to be taken seriously, they too should use their common sense and STOP underestimating the Western Zodiac's ONLY natural predator...LEO.