Would you care to explain that statement further?
OK, let's dig into this.
1. How could the populace "react with great unhappiness to the destruction of their churches and monasteries"? They weren't theirs to start off with.
The churches did belong to the people of the parish, in much the same way that a village church "belongs" to its people today. You know how proud a small village can be of its beautiful old church (usually much too big for the current population, never mind the current churchgoing population, what with the migration to the cities and suburbia.) Back in those days, with no mass communication and no easy travel, the parish church was local meeting place, bulletin board, memorial, art gallery, and pet project. The parish decorated it - most of the images that were smashed by the iconoclasts were locally produced by their own craftsmen - the wall paintings that were whitewashed over, the statues that were burned, the intricate carved roodscreens that were hacked to pieces (stained glass I'll grant you was a specialty item, paid for by the local large landowners and imported from the workshops at urban centers or from France at great expense, but dearly loved and shown to visitors with pride. Much of the surviving medieval stained glass was hidden from the image-smashers by local parishioners - that's why so many country churches have just the head of Christ or St. Anne because that's all they had time to save and hide.) When outsiders came charging in with decrees that the church be "purified," what they were smashing and burning was what the people had made and what the people cherished. That is NOT going to go over well, anytime, anywhere.
2. The monasteries were, in general, remote and exclusivist places. They divided people.
See the preface to C.S. Lewis's The Discarded Image for a good summary of the fallacy of applying modern assumptions to medieval worldview.
Monasteries were not remote in pre-industrialized days (that of course begs the question - remote from what? Everywhere was remote from everywhere else, then.) Their land and holdings were labor-intensive (everything was labor-intensive in those days). Many formerly well-populated rural areas have emptied into the cities and suburbs.
Your large monastery was by necessity just another landowner, with tenants, freeholders, bailiffs, and all the rest of the feudal administrative machinery. The idea that they could afford to stand remote and separated from the laity is the assumption of a modern who forgets just how many people are required to till even a small amount of land in the days before modern ploughs, mechanized reaping, and hayrakes came in -- never mind the internal combustion engine, I'm talking about horse- or oxen-drawn equipment. The pleasant picture of a couple dozen Benedictines with their habits kilted up mowing their entire property with old-fashioned scythes is completely impossible. A big religious foundation would have to have hundreds of tenants and a smaller number of freeholders just to farm the land, with the same arrangements for a portion of the increase or rent to be paid to the landowner.
Because they were the same as any other landowner from an administrative point of view, they had good and bad in their ranks. Some managed their property better, treated their tenants better, and were better loved by their tenants and adherents. Others, not so much. But this was true of any class of landowner in all of Britain, not exclusively the monasteries and religious foundations.
3. Sure a lot of the monasteries helped the poor, but the point is that they had created a lot of the poor themselves in the first place by concentrating wealth,(a lot of which was shipped overseas).
"Concentrating wealth"? Modern ideas applied to the feudal system again. Any large administrative body is going to concentrate wealth -- that was true of every landowner in England from the smallest freeholder to the greatest Duke. It was not unique to the monasteries. And, of course, the concept of aiding the poor on ones own land was also not unique to the monasteries, but the monasteries were the primary custodians of the system of hospitals, refuges, almshouses, chantries, etc. Many of the nobility fulfilled their charitable obligations by donating or bequeathing sums of money to the monasteries for the care of the poor. Some of the "doles" that were created in those days are traceable in the legal records.
I do not know if anybody has made a study of the relative income and expenditures of the great monastic houses on poor relief, but their dissolution undisputedly left the poor hanging out to dry. The Poor Laws were first enacted towards the end of Henry's reign. That tells you who was doing the lion's share of the work to care for the poor.
As for sending stuff overseas, they sent absolutely as little as they thought they could get away with. Like any other business, their main thought was to invest any surplus back into the property. There were some pretty fierce squabbles on that score from time to time.
For what it's worth, I took a degree in history as an undergraduate, with a concentration in military history with particular reference to the American Civil War and the English Civil War. And of course all of this brouhaha under Henry is what set events in motion that led to the platform in front of the Banqueting House.