You may have already found the MD Anderson report. It, as well as other info on the internet, does mention the possibility of helping with inflammation. https://www.mdanderson.org/cancerwise/what-is-red-light-therapy.h00-159701490.html
Barbara

I am not familiar with Dr Anderson, or his experience with NTM or other lung infections, but the discussion of Red Light Therapy arises from time to time in this group, and I would like to cite one study about efficacy for your consideration:

This was published in 2021 in the Journal of Communicative and Integrative Biology, and was specifically done in response to finding treatments for lung infections like Covid-19.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8451450/
I have extracted two sections from this long article for those who do not wish to plow through 30 plus pages.
" 4.2. Practical considerations for use of infrared therapy to treat lung illness
Unlike most current applications of photobiomodulation therapy, treatment of lung inflammation requires deep, uniform penetration of light into the chest cavity. Unfortunately, many LED-based photobiomodulation devices on the market do not provide either the necessary intensity or a suitable wavelength for deep tissue penetration. Red light, for instance, does not effectively penetrate beneath the skin surface and generates high heat, as is true also of infrared heating lamps or incandescent bulbs, which emit at wavelengths above 900 nm. Exposure to many such lamps at the intensities necessary for chest therapy would result in burns to the skin, for example, an incandescent infrared light. Further practical considerations are with respect to the time-dependence of the therapy. Exposure times have to be quite precise, as even 5-min variation renders the treatment ineffective (Figure 2). However, we did not find a significant decrease in effectiveness even at much higher light intensities (Figs.3, 4), suggesting that too much light intensity is not a problem, and only the duration of exposure is critical. Thus, the main challenge is providing a uniform illumination at a high enough intensity to the patient’s thoracic cavity.

We have used a wavelength at 720–750 nm in our study as this provides penetration of tissue without engendering heat and has optimal effects on TLR4-dependent inflammation.

To achieve maximum effectiveness, a further consideration is the timing factor; all sections of the lung should be uniformly illuminated over a single optimal 10 m time interval. Therefore, light sources for an eventual treatment should be arranged to illuminate the entire chest surface as uniformly as possible, and from front and back simultaneously. This can be achieved, for instance, using four suitably positioned LED bulbs or two suitably positioned LED floodlights (Figure 6). Since most commercially available photobiomodulation devices do not fulfill the high output requirements, we caution against using them without first testing their wavelength and intensity to determine if they are suitable. The same considerations also apply to the use of photobiomodulation lasers."

In the conclusion they state: "However, no large-scale clinical trial data are currently available, which will bring this therapeutic intervention into the mainstream. We hope that our results will help to provide a roadmap for which factors of wavelength, intensity, and most critically the time interval of light application are crucial so as to develop an optimal treatment protocol in patients."

I have also reviewed Google Scholar for more recent studies, and there don't seem to be any.

So, appropriate red-light therapy may help in reducing lung infection, but it seems the light spectrum, intensity and time of exposure are critical. It also appears that most of the "home units" are inadequate for penetrating deeply enough (through skin, muscle and bone) to be effective.

Does anyone have information about other studies, either completed or in process, studying this therapy for lungs?