I'd tend to agree to be honest. Consider this: a group of thieves jump you and pin you down, they want to perform a banking transaction on your phone. They grab your hand, extend your finger and press it against the phones sensor. They're in. On some mobile banking apps, they can perform the same.
The use of a password only known to you cannot be physically taken from you as your mind controls that authentication mechanism.
Consider this: you are working on your laptop in a public place, like on the train. or in a coffee shop. You log in to your company website. Anyone looking over your shoulder can see you type your password, as well as the webpage you're logging in to.
And it's not just people standing behind you, it can also be the security camera in that coffee shop. It can be someone looking through your office window with a telescope from the next building over.
Same goes for your phone. There are ample opportunities to see someone type in their PIN code to unlock their phone, especially if you use it for payments which are generally done in public places. No need for violence, no need to draw attention to yourself, just watch them enter their PIN and then pickpocket the phone afterwards.
It all depends on the exact threat scenario, but biometric authentication can be preferable to passwords when used in public places.
When Ed Snowden accesses his laptop in the documentary Citizenfour, he puts a blanket over his head and himself including the laptop, then types in the password (presumably... we will never know :), and only then emerges from the blanket. I thought that was an excellent simple security measure!
Maybe a bit weird if you start doing that in trains and coffee shops though.
They can also threaten to cut off your finger, in which case you'd probably want to enter the password anyway. Also, your password can easily be found by looking over your shoulder or by you unlocking your device in front of a camera - which is quite likely, given how often you unlock your phone. You can also collect and fake a fingerprint, but it's a lot more effort.
On the other hand, in a few countries police can force you to use biometric authentication, but not to release your passwords. In the end, you really need to think about your threat scenario and act accordingly.
That's why systems correctly designed have not one but two passwords (or PINs), which look identical. You enter either and everything seems to work. But one of the two means "I'm under duress".
If people home-jack me at night, my 24/7 alarm system/monitoring company calls me in the following 45 seconds at most and asks me for my password. If I say "monkey" it means everything is fine, if I say "beetle" it means I'm under duress. When I give either password, the company answers: "OK, sleep well, all is good". But in the later case they call the police and tell them a home-jacking is ongoing. (obviously my two words aren't "monkey" and "beetle", this is just an example).
(as a bonus my alarm system has an anti-jamming system and communicates using several channels)
Banking apps should be the same: they should have one PIN to do regular business and another one where everything looks legit, but you'd only be making fake wire transfer or only allowed tiny withdrawals, showing a small balance.
Some companies (for example my alarm system) and websites (very few but I've seen some) and some HSM (for example cryptocurrencies hardware wallets can decode using two keys, one of them showing a smaller balance than the real one) have seen the light and have such a feature.
I do believe we're still in the stone age when it comes to security. Most people like to post that disastrous XKCD and think the bad guys have forever won thanks to their $5 wrench. I'd hazard a guess: people thinking with that victim mentality aren't the ones coming up with better security systems.
The use of a password only known to you cannot be physically taken from you as your mind controls that authentication mechanism.