There is no study measuring that. The specific design the question describes, alternating Reiki and hypnotherapy across twelve weeks and tracking cellular repair markers, does not exist in the published literature, so any number put against it would be invented. That is the most useful thing to say plainly before anything else, because the question is phrased as if the answer were already sitting in a lab report.
It is worth being clear about what “cellular repair markers” would even mean here. People sometimes point to molecules like the inflammation signals IL-6 and CRP, or a growth factor such as BDNF, as stand-ins for healing. Those markers move for many reasons, including sleep, exercise, diet, stress, and illness, so reading a change as proof that a therapy repaired cells is rarely simple even in well-run trials.
The evidence that does exist sits well short of this premise. Reiki has been looked at mostly in small studies focused on relaxation, comfort, anxiety, and sometimes pain, and reviews tend to describe the findings as limited and inconclusive rather than as established biological effects. Hypnotherapy has stronger support for things like procedural anxiety, certain pain, and conditions such as irritable bowel syndrome, but its case rests on symptoms and behavior, not on demonstrated changes to cellular repair. Neither has a track record of moving healing biomarkers in a controlled way.
So the parts separate cleanly:
What can honestly be said:
- both practices are associated, in some people, with reduced stress and a calmer state
- lower stress is generally good for the body, in broad and non-specific ways
- relaxation is a plausible and real benefit to report
What cannot be claimed:
- that twelve weeks of alternating sessions improve cellular repair markers
- that Reiki or hypnotherapy has been shown to change IL-6, CRP, BDNF, or similar measures
- any specific biomarker figure, since no such study supplies one
A person drawn to either practice might reasonably value how it makes them feel, and that subjective benefit is fair to seek. What the evidence will not currently support is a biological story dressed in lab values. Treating this as an open and untested question, rather than a settled finding, is the accurate position.