I'm not sure why the comments here seem so dismissive. The mechanism that eyes need red light for regenerative processes is known for a long time I think. I remember a friend working in optics telling me about that a decade ago. Eyes are adapted for sunlight, which is more than plausible.
It's just not popular because it implies that screen use is bad and those unpopular scientific topics are often pushed under the rug.
Frankly my experience with posting sources on HN has almost never been good. It's often just taken as a reason to pick those apart and start a flamewar. My comment above has been downvoted at least 5 times which makes me confident that this is one those times.
For what it's worth I have no stakes in anything and no sources at hand. I remember having read at least two different studies about this, but it has been years. I'm sure your google-fu is as good as mine so maybe you can find something.
2016: Red Light of the Visual Spectrum Attenuates Cell Death in Culture and Retinal Ganglion Cell Death in Situ
" Low, non-toxic levels of red light focussed on the retina for a short period of time are sufficient to attenuate an insult of raised IOP to the rat retina"
2015: Mitochondrial Decline Precedes Phenotype Development in the Complement Factor H Mouse Model of Retinal Degeneration but Can Be Corrected by Near Infrared Light
"we provide evidence for a mitochondrial basis for this disease in mice and correct this with simple light exposure known to improve mitochondrial function"
And this site includes an interesting chart of effective light frequencies:
"This chart pulled from the Joovv site shows that one of the receptors of light energy in our body, Cytochrome C Oxidase, absorbs many more photons at certain wavelengths."
It's just not popular because it implies that screen use is bad and those unpopular scientific topics are often pushed under the rug.