I was curious, so I looked it up on Amazon. This is an excerpt of the book description:

The Man Who Quit Money is an account of how one man learned to live, sanely and happily, without earning, receiving, or spending a single cent. Suelo doesn't pay taxes, or accept food stamps or welfare. He lives in caves in the Utah canyonlands, forages wild foods and gourmet discards. He no longer even carries an I.D. Yet he manages to amply fulfill not only the basic human needs-for shelter, food, and warmth-but, to an enviable degree, the universal desires for companionship, purpose, and spiritual engagement.

How did he find companionship in the Utah canyonlands? Does he have a girlfriend who shares the same lifestyle? Or is this more of a "the trees and animals are his friends" sort of thing?

It doesn't seem like this lifestyle is fundamentally sustainable for society (foraging does not scale). With something that will not work if everyone does it, is it really worth idolizing?

The book does talk about how this lifestyle is available only because of the consumerist lifestyle that dominates this country and the paradox this seems to present. The thing is there's an entire spectrum between how this man lives and the consumer lifestyle that is now the norm in this country. There's no ned to idolize his lifestyle, it's more about being aware of your needs and what makes you happy or keeps you at peace and consciously choosing your place along that spectrum. The author describes his views on this kind of self reflection and I found it very comforting because it seemed to closely align with the lifestyle I would like to adhere to. It's not the extreme Suelo has chosen but I believe it's closer to that end than what I think is typical in this country. Check out the book, it's an easy and enjoyable read. I'd send you my copy but I really want my wife to read it.

>>It doesn't seem like this lifestyle is fundamentally sustainable for society (foraging does not scale).

And consumerism is?

False dichotomy.

See: Whataboutism

Yes, of course. We can tolerate diversity. Luckily not everyone wants the same things.

He has a very active blog which he is posting to and replying to comments most days. He does volunteer work and other work in exchange for food or other provisions. I think he still travels frequently staying with people who offer room. He has a family that he's described as being very close to. He has spent time with people who share his views but I don't know about his current situation. He is gay so if he is in an intimate relationship it is probably with a man. I think he might have a more active social life than myself.

This may not answer your entire question, but in the first pages of the book preview on Amazon: "He does not panhandle, and he often works--declining payment for his efforts."

Also: "And although he lives in a cave, he is not a hermit: he is relentlessly social, remains close with friends and family, and engages in discussions with strangers via the website he maintains from the public library."

Well it's all about the options one has right? I personally am looking to be able as much as a person can do.

If you chose to not live with money, you can be happy, but you are only very very restricted in what you do.

You can live in the woods for sure, but you will never be able to have a family except they all want to live in the woods, you will never be able to give you child an education if it wants to, you'll never be able to be a scientist again, nor solving problems for other people, you can only solve problems for yourself.

For me personally, that's not something to strive for.

There are several of these people/stories out there. All still use some kind of currency, though. Usually favors, or they trade physical things. What's wrong with a paycheck when you're doing work that solves a problem? It's still a system of mutually-beneficial trade, yet it's seen as less noble. Why is that?