Not entirely sure what this means and sounds awfully woo-woo to me. You can't have a mind without some kind of machinery, that's sort of my materialist fundamentalist postulate.
Yer I'm a big fan of Latour, whose non-human actors sound sort of similar. I guess it's easier for me to believe in pan-agency than pan-cognition, and panpsychism sounds more like the latter than the former.
On the other hand – forget the ghosts, you don't have to believe in them to believe that meaning is spread out in the world. A river is meaningful to the people who interact with it, but the meaning is not (only) in the heads of the people, it's found in the material relationship that includes and connects mind and world.
Does Gregory Bateson count as a panpsychist? I guess so, although I think his view was subtly different. He'd blanch at the curt definition from Panpsychism | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy: "Panpsychism is the view that all things have a mind or a mind-like quality." And he'd say that mind is not a quality that inheres in things, it's a function of relationship.
The term does not appear in his Mind and Nature, FWIW