This is exactly what I was talking about.
When asked "Do you teach the poor to endure their lot?" Mother Teresa replied "I think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot, to share it with the passion of Christ. I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people."
She was, until the end of her life anyway, a very devout Christian but her order was a bit fringe. She didn't really provide medical care, she referred to her facilities as "houses of the dying" and their suffering was a good thing as it brought them closer to God so pain management was basically non existent. There are reams of statements from medical professionals, Indian and Western, that visited her facilities and the general consensus was that they were "horrifying" and lacked even the most basic attention to cleanliness.
She did feed a lot of people, but not many compared to other charities operating in the same places that had smaller budgets.
I also can't dismiss the fact that she used her reputation to support war criminals like the Duvalier family, although in other comments you do dismiss this so ... sure, I'll just concentrate on the rest.
If you do believe in the christian afterlife then perhaps she is a great person as she probably did convert a lot of sick people in India as they suffered and became more likely to accept Jesus as their saviour. If you don't then she let poor people die unnecessarily and intentionally heaped unnecessary suffering on the poor.
So like I said, definitely, unequivocally, based on her own statements alone, she is not a good canonical example of selfless altruism since a good canonical example would not be judged only by a fringe sect of Christianity that looks to enhance the suffering of the poor.