That's kind of funny, but no - I think you'll find that the term "Apologist' at least in practice ends up describing a person who seeks to minimize the damage done to cults by various criticism. In the case of Maharajism, cult apologists often direct ad-hominem attacks against outspoken critics as a way of discrediting the source and therefore the substance of the criticism. A complimentary tactic is the use of historical revisionism to similarly discredit the various claims of critics.
In general, cult apologists seek to put a positive spin on the cultic experience by essentially lying or at the least deliberately and grossly mischaracterizing a wide range of facts and information.
Apologists don't really apologize - they spin, they dance the two step on thin ice, they equivocate, they lie if they can get away with it, they bully, they intimidate, they deceive, and in general participate in the execrable practice of putting a good face on a phenomenon which is most destructive to the very participants who invest themselves in it with the most sincerity and dedication.
Cult apologists, like the cult leaders they seek to protect and serve, are deeply misguided at best and morally and intellectually compromised at worst.
