This is a key point. Especially if we actually start doing something about CO2 emissions, which will mean reducing energy consumption for the next couple of decades. Stock market growth has historically been tightly linked with energy consumption growth.
While the point of probability of staying low holds, I don't think there is a tight coupling with the energy consumption. Surely, nature (business ecosystem) will find a way for growth driver even without energy density increase.
I think nature's growth will be like 1% or less, certainly not the stock market growth people are used to. To me, it is obvious there is a tight coupling: energy does work instead of humans/animals, thus allowing more productivity. When you look at a construction site it's just human directed diesel-energy (with some chemical energy in the concrete).
Much of the developed world is transitioning to a service economy that relies less on the fossil fuels, but it still relies on the inputs that do (agriculture, electronics, offshore manufacturing). And we've set up the economy around fuel consumption: long commutes from suburbia, inefficient houses, processed and packaged foods, etc. And what about the travel industry: burning fossil fuels for no productivity (just realized it acts as a mop for the excess capital).
If we're lucky, we can use the fossil energy to bootstrap the renewable energy, then we can eat farmed foods, drive electric cars, and work on computers remotely. But there just won't be the energy to drive the economy the way cheap energy does.
