Merging advice from the comments and my own research, it seems that both hylozoism and panpsychism are accepted by scholars as reasonable, and equivalent, speculations to describe the thought of Thales.
References:
Panpsychysm in the West (2017), from the MIT, mentioned in the comments: Hylozoism... has traditionally been used in reference to the early Greek philosopherss, given that they spoke the most explicitly about life in all things... Of all the synonyms for panpsychism, hylozoism is perhaps most commonly and closely associated with it. But panpsychism is now the preferred term, largely because we have a better understanding of what constitutes lifeOf all the synonyms for panpsychism, hylozoism is perhaps most commonly and closely associated with it. But panpsychism is now the preferred term, largely because we have a better understanding of what constitutes life... there is little place for hylozoism in the present-day philosophical discourse.
Presocratic Philosophers (1983) from Cambridge University, which is much older but I have found quoted many times as an authoritative work: [Thales] noticed that even certain kinds of stone could have a limited power of movement and therefore, he thought, of life-giving soul; the whole world as a whole, consequently, was somehow permeated (though probably not completely) by a life-forcelife-giving soul; the whole world as a whole, consequently, was somehow permeated (though probably not completely) by a life-force which might naturally, because of its extent and its persistence, be called divine.[...] The concluding word must be that the evidence for Thales' cosmology is too slight and too imprecise for any of this to be more than speculative; what has been aimed at is reasonable speculationwhat has been aimed at is reasonable speculation.