It seems to me that stable and viable moneyless societies that existed in the past would still exist if they were stable and viable.
Then again, not sure how you can label a "society" as "moneyless" when they are really a charity receiving money.
What does stability have to do with it? There are many reasons why a society might move to a money-based economy, not the least of which are the possibility of long-term investment and taxation. For thousands of years in ancient Egypt, transactions were conducted in terms of grain, a commodity that had an intrinsic value. And for most of the history of European and the Mediterranean, up until 1500, most transactions were conducted without money. States did not mint coins in sufficient number and in sufficiently small denominations to make it otherwise. Certainly, it's difficult in the modern world to move away from money as a basis of transactions: such efforts tend to be experimental and short-lived.
What use for money would a charity have in a money-less society? Why does moneyless equate with charity? Again, look at the long history of humanity: Many wealthy societies survived without it.