I don't know about that theory, but this sounds like a good time to talk about the difference between a 'theory', and a 'hypothesis.'
A hypothesis is an idea like, "Maybe large earthquakes are more likely to occur during a total solar eclipse." A GOOD hypothesis includes a plausible explanation, like..., um,... Well actually, I can't think of any plausible connection between eclipses and earthquakes, so I'll have to leave that to somebody else. Anyway, a hypothesis can either be confirmed or disproved by looking at the facts.
A theory is a body of scientific knowlege including hypotheses and models that have stood the test of time. A theory of eclipse triggered earthquakes would include a model of how eclipses trigger earthquakes, and it would include mathematical "laws" that yield accurate predictions about things like how many earthquakes, and what intensity, and at what time in relation to the eclipse, etc.
To call an idea a "theory" is to say that it has been accepted by the scientific community, not only as the standard explanation for something, but also as a foundation upon which new hypotheses and new theories can be built.
If there is a THEORY of eclipse triggered earthquakes, then I have not heard of it.
Once upon a time, solar eclipses were widely understood to be portents of doom. Maybe some social scientist can come up with a good theory about why people are so eager to see portents of doom, and why the public clings to the remnants of such ideas, long after the portentious phenomena have been explained.