What precisely is the virtue you see here? My personal moral code considers hoarding wealthy to be unvirtuous.
So as I said, if he earned the money, that means he provided for others, and in exchange he got these pieces of paper, which say that later, if he wants to, he can get others to provide for him in return.
Not spending the money means that he never claims anything for himself in return for what he did for others. How is that not virtuous?
Virtuous would be to just give the money away to those he loved or needed that money (I'm not saying he should do that, I'm just following your logic).
As things go, he will have lived his last years like a poor man, and his family will inherit his money. He will have suffered for nothing, because he doesn't have enough money to make the rest of his family rich, just enough that he wouldn't need to suffer not having anything now.
Sure, giving the money away may or may not be more virtuous (depends on who gets it and what they do with it). But surely you would agree with me that spending it on one's own pleasures is less virtuous than either of not spending it, investing it productively or giving it to loved ones?
Two of the most famous stoics Seneca and Marcus Aurelius were among the wealthiest and most powerful men in Ancient Rome yet intentionally lived like you describe because they saw it as virtuous, but also helping make them personally happy people.
I am personally prone to chronic depression and have found that living simply and embracing discomfort helps me to be less depressed. I can afford to live in extreme comfort but I wouldn’t be happy like that, I would feel lethargic and weak… like a pampered pet and not a person with strength and purpose.
What you have described is living your life where you satisfaction comes only from purchasing comfort. Doesn’t that feel a bit empty and pointless? What is important to you in life? Couldn’t you do better at things that were really important, and thus be happier and more satisfied if you had cultivated the strength to not need those comforts?
I think there's a difference between having absolute comfort, and not turning up the heater in winter time, enduring cold inside your own house. Besides, it's not like he lives alone, his wife lives with him, and she has to endure that whether she likes it or not (they're old and there's no way for her to leave him, so let's not go there).
So, being a stoic is ok if that's what you like. But dragging others with you by force I think is not ok, and if you apply stoicism on things like not warming up your house, or not buying good food when you invite your family to gather in your house once a year having all the resources to be a good host, is not stoicism. It's being cheap for the sake of being cheap.
Also, my wife told me he's been like that his entire life. It's not like he turned cheap in his old age.
On my part, I'm not going to have dinner for Christmas at his house ever again.