I think Peter Singer challenged a lot of deluded, 'magical' thinking in the 1970s when he wrote in Animal Liberation about realizing that animals are not mere tools for human use, to be exploited in any and every possible way, but fellow beings. We know this about dogs and cats, but ignore it in the case of cows, sheep, ocean life, and, for example, the billions of living baby chickens we grind in "macerators" every year.[0] He is a philosopher who believes in living things. This article is just embarrassing.
I don't think a logical positivist would have much a problem with the content (although perhaps they wouldn't like the language used). How would you go about verifying that the Mississippi does not have "agency" but a slow worm does? They'd perhaps dismiss it as a meaningless question in the context of scientific enquiry, but fine to discuss in another context (in another "language" as they might put it).
I concur on the magical thinking. Calls for a new Carnap are a bit excessive though. The position displayed in the article is fringe. It does not in any way represent the academic mainstream.
From reading the article, neither the author nor Bennett is arguing that these objects are actually the mechanism or cause to which these events occur.
To rephrase their underlying worldview, Bennett seems to find intellectual and epistemic merit - or at least interest - in exploring the notion that some objects have properties which make them more or less likely to initiate or augment human, natural or other actions, on or around those objects.
From my reading of the article, this isn't someone trying to explain causal relationships but rather someone highlighting the benefits of different modalities of thought, as they relate to the intellectual and cognitive experience of the reader.
Where is this generation's Carnap?