If you want to see photobiomodulation at its most convincing, look at skin and hair rather than at the brain. The reason is unglamorous but decisive: the target tissue is right there. Most of the uncertainty that dogs deeper applications — how much light penetrates, how much reaches the intended structure, whether a given dose arrives at all — largely dissolves when the target is a few millimetres from the emitter.
Scars: Small Studies, Consistent Direction
A 2026 scoping review of red and near-infrared photobiomodulation for burn, hypertrophic and post-surgical scars identified seven clinical studies involving 297 participants. Reported improvements spanned scar thickness, pigmentation, elasticity, pain and pruritus in specific settings. The authors were clear that the studies were small and heterogeneous, which limits how far the findings generalize.
Seven studies is a starting point, not a conclusion. What makes the signal interesting is the mechanistic fit: scar formation involves collagen organization, fibroblast behaviour and inflammatory signalling, and reviews of mitochondrial redox signalling in photobiomodulation describe plausible influence on exactly those processes. Mechanism and outcome pointing the same way is more persuasive than either on its own.
Hair Density: The Field's Strongest Card
The 2025 umbrella review of photobiomodulation — 15 meta-analyses, 204 randomized controlled trials, over 9,000 participants — identified moderate-certainty evidence for increased hair density in androgenetic alopecia. Moderate certainty was the highest tier reached anywhere in that review, since no outcome achieved high certainty. Earlier waveband-specific meta-analyses of light therapy for hair loss point in the same direction.
The caveat is the one that governs this entire field: this evidence belongs to the wavelengths, doses and devices that were tested. It does not transfer to a device simply because that device also emits red light.
Tissue Recovery More Broadly
Beyond scars and hair, tissue-level research extends into musculoskeletal recovery. In tendinopathy, across 17 randomized controlled trials with 835 participants, light combined with exercise outperformed sham plus exercise on pain and function. In knee osteoarthritis, reductions in pain and disability were reported with low to very low certainty for important outcomes and an explicit caution against isolated use.
The consistent theme across all of it is adjunctive value. Light appears to add something on top of care that is already appropriate — wound management, dermatological treatment, loading and rehabilitation — rather than substituting for it.
What This Means for Proprietary Systems
Proprietary technologies such as The Light System™ report a different class of data: laboratory bioelectrical and cellular conductivity measurements rather than dermatological or musculoskeletal endpoints, alongside an explicit statement that the company makes no medical claims about the technology. That data does not extend the scar or hair findings above to TLS, and the scar and hair findings do not validate TLS. Keeping those categories separate is what makes either one worth citing.
Sensible Expectations
Expect gradual, cumulative change over weeks rather than a visible response after one session. Do not treat an undiagnosed lesion, a non-healing wound or a suspected infection with a light device instead of seeing a clinician. Follow session limits, since dose response is biphasic and longer is not better. Anyone with photosensitivity, on a photosensitizing medication, pregnant, or with an active malignancy should consult a physician first — a point reinforced by the 2025 photobiomodulation safety consensus.
Continue with the full Light System™ research guide, light for pain and physical recovery, or our red light therapy page.
Educational information only. Not medical advice, and not an offer of The Light System™ as a service at Sanctuary Tulum.