If monasteries are the future, I should be right about the past
Any good theory makes predictions, so here’s what I’d expect to find in the historical record (from 0 to 1000AD):
Overview of this period: Rome’s institutions seized up, talent went to military tech and the church (monasteries). Life outside church property became increasingly chaotic.
The monasteries we see today are “failed” monasteries in the sense that neither cities nor universities formed around them. This could be for geographic reasons (monastery too far up in the mountains), or because secular society (kings, etc) took some of the best ideas from monasteries and implemented them in universities
Monasteries were difficult to match intellectually in the outside world unless you worked on military tech.
Convents came after monasteries and often built nearby, but generally not too close (for obvious reasons).
Many Christians lived on church property, and they lived under a different set of rules (effectively laws) than people outside. Many converts would move onto church property, and then get married.
Land owned by the church had faster population growth, marriages were more stable than land owned by secular institutions or private individuals. Over time, secular institutions copied and adopted Christian practices and principles.
Life on church property was better than life off of it. I believe in the beginning, one of the main pros was a stable family life, but not because material life was particularly good. Over the centuries, church local economy was more vibrant, higher trust, and more productive. Life off of church property became increasingly unstable and violent and only started turning around when the marauders started taking direction from the church.