This article is framed as if there is something novel and profound here, but the "aliveness" of mitochondria is simply a matter of how we choose to apply the label "life" - a human linguistic construct that exists independently of the biological phenomena. This is not a new discussion - science has been considering this question for many decades, just as it has with viruses. These all come down to arguments about semantics and don't add anything to the science.

Mitochondria are fascinating and there is still a huge amount to learn about them but they are totally dependent on the cell's machinery. Most of their genes, the code for their structure, are in the nuclear DNA. A glaring omission if you are trying to make the case that mitochondria are independently living. My heart can exist independently of me, and be transplanted into other people, but does it mean that it is alive?

The implication of the whole article is that there something we have missed. This really isn't the case. Lynn Margulis's endosymbiotic origin of mitochondria was challenged by many, and it did spark a scientific debate - that's how science works. She won the argument comprehensively decades ago and is well established science. There have been many such endosymbiotic events in the history of life - there are subfields of evolutionary biology that study these processes.