[wideminded]

So what did she spend it on?

According to Hitchens she opened 150 convents in her own name. Perhaps this would have been enough money to open at least one teaching hospital.

You may say that she was never a medical administrator, but certainly it is a valid criticism that Hitchens makes to point out that she allowed people under her care to suffer and die needlessly. IMHO there is nothing wrong with at least one person presenting a countervailing argument to the almost universal assumptions about her saintliness. People can combine that with other information to attempt to form the most realistic view.

It always seems to be true that highly revered people, Gandhi for instance, have at least a few dark sides to their personality and actions.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Opening 150 convents (what "in her own name" means I do not know) is in itself a good work; and many of her novices --- not all, but many --- were themselves poor: so: communities of poor women who lived exceedingly simply and prayed and shared what they had (materially and spiritually) with the absolutely destitute. And probably had tiny, tiny CO₂ footprints, for what it's worth.

This is not malfeasance: it's exactly what Teresa was about, and what she said she was about.

Anybody like to add up how many teaching hospitals are supported by the Catholic Church? Which itself (the Church) was generously funded by Mother T?

It's significant, I think, that Christopher Hitchens was invited --- at the Vatican's expense, I believe---to Rome to testify against Mother Teresa, which he did at ample length. You can read it all in the records of her canonization. Think of that.